You may be aware that my book “A Practitioner’s Approach and Interpretation of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 ” was published in december 2012. The book can be purchased through my office, the publishers Xlibris or through Amazon.
Please note that I did not authorise or agree that Amazon could sell my book, this was a decison made by my publishers for reasons which escape me.
Amazon is selling my book at a substantially discounted price than I can indeed sell it for! which seems rather bizarre given that I am the Author.
After many months of investigation and receiving a substantial number of author’s copies, I noted that the publishers had mistakenly printed the draft manuscript before I had given the final authors approval. A large number of books contain several typographical errors. Although, they were eliminated when I approved the final manuscript. Unfortunately and again without my approval these misprinted books have been offered to Amazon and hence the reduced price.
Whilst the errors are minor and relatively few they are nonetheless a mistake that should not have happened. I would suggest that for those of you that purchased the book through Amazon you return them to Amazon and ask for a refund.
The final approved book can be purchased through my office or the publishers Xilbris at £29.99. Alternatively, if you are prepared to purchase a copy of the first run of misprinted books I have several available at a cost of £10.00 plus £2.50 PP.
Alternatively you can purchase a used copy from Amazon for significantly more than than they are selling a misprinted new copy? please see below, I am sure your as confused as I am with Amazons pricing strategy.
A Practitioner’s Approach and Interpretation of The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 by Philip Antino (29 Nov 2012)
- Order in the next 2 hours and get it by Tuesday, Mar 26.
- £2.63 Kindle Edition
- Available for download now
- More buying choices – Paperback
- £24.50 new (7 offers)
- £30.13 used (3 offers)
I can only apologise for any confusion caused which is outside of my control
Hope your well, can you help with this
Two owners have each built a structure up to the LoJ with a four inch (100mm) skin of brickwork but at different times. The two skins are not bonded, does this make a party wall?
Thank you Richard for the question and agreeing to this being put on the blog.
In your scenario it is reasonable to conclude that neither owners wanted or intended to build a party wall (no bonding) and simply have both built up to the line of junction which was their right. I understand that these walls were in fact constructed over 20 years ago and one of the owners now wants to demolish and build a new extension.
The question is does a notice under section 2 have to be served?
I don’t think that two independent walls can ever become one unless they are tied together either with brick bond or mechanical fixings. I have done some research a found a case (Thornton v Hunter 1898) that supports this view. Whilst this case relates to the LBA 1894 Act, I think the principles and decision remain applicable although would be grateful if anyone knows of any other cases.
In Thornton v Hunter the court held that two separate walls in contact with each other did not make them a party wall and it was a question of whether by use they created or became a party wall. Because each property had its own wall they were not a party wall.
However, we now have new legislation so there are some caveats:
1 if your owner intends to build up to the LoJ they will have to serve a notice under 1(5) and 6(1) in any event
2 there will be an obligation to support and protect the AO wall when it is exposed
so the AO has rights and is protected under the Act
But I don’t believe it is a party wall so section 2(2) notices are not required in my opinion
I was appointed by the BO and served s6(1) notice, 14 days passed no response Later that same day I recieved a call from a surveyor saying that he had been appointed by the AO and an email with his letter of appointment we agreed the selection of the TS over the next few days.
I received a call form the BO sadly advising that his wife had been diagnosed with cancer and for obvious reasons did not want to proceed.
I immediately told the AOS the situation which he accepted and advised that he had incurred fees and wanted paying.
I emailed him to confirm our conversation and stating that the BO was no longer proceeding. Given the unusual circumstances I was somewhat shocked that he wanted paying. Nonetheless I invited him to submit his fees for my consideration. I received an immediate invoice by email stating that his fees were £330 pounds plus vat for attending a preliminary site visit (before he was appointed), time recorded at 30 mins, writing to me advising that he had been appointed (the letter arrived three days later with his letter of appointment). He included a charge for the TS selection and also charged £100 for preparing his invoice. He also stated that if this was not agreed he would want to refer the matter to the TS
Now putting the emotional situation aside, I accepted that he had a right to be paid a reasonable fee. I contacted the BO and gave him chapter and verse, I recommended that he pay the fee to avoid any further costs.
This is where it becomes interesting, The BO made a bacs payment of £396.00 in full to the AO’s bank account (details on his invoice) within 48 hours and sends a letter saying that he had paid the fee in full because of the potential cost implications, but considered his fee was unreasonable.
The AOS replies by letter to the BO enclosing a cheque for £396.00 claiming that he was returning the payment and there was now a dispute over his fees and he was going to refer the matter to the TS and this would incur further fees.
The BO suggested that this was unreasonable and would make a complaint to the RICS.
But where is the dispute under the act, a fee has been incurred, requested and paid in full ??? I hear you ask, I advised the BO not to cash the cheque, the matter went to a very experienced and knowledgeable TS.
Submissions were relatively simple and short , I as the BOS suggested that there was no dispute the fee had been paid in full, the BO was entitled to express his frustration. The AOS had returned the payment by cheque which had not been cashed and therefore the AOS was not financially disadvantage. He had asked and received exactly what he wanted.
The TS in his infinite wisdom awarded that there was a dispute and awarded his fees and additional fees of the AOS against the BO. Who now faced additional fees of £800.00
Now given the personal circumstances of the BO the TS award has not been appealed, but the question I pose is
(1) Were the AOS actions reasonable and acceptable professionally
(2) Was the TS wrong
I think the TS was clearly wrong to decide that a dispute had arisen.
Having received my copy this week, I too have been finding it hard to stop dipping into and then resisting the desire to keep reading, i.e. to get on with the day job.
I am enjoying the fresh writing style and clarity of the subject matter – many thanks.
I was delighted to receive a copy of your book yesterday. I have already read parts of it and it is an extremely impressive piece of work, written with great clarity. I am sure it will become the leading book on the subject.
The Rt Hon Mr. Philip M Bartle QC.