When a party wall matter becomes difficult, people often assume the next step is “court.” In reality, the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 builds in its own dispute-resolution mechanism through the Third Surveyor, which is usually faster, cheaper, and more practical than legal action.
What is a Third Surveyor?
If two surveyors are appointed (one by each owner), they must select a Third Surveyor at the start of the process. The Third Surveyor is not automatically involved day-to-day. Think of them as an independent referee who can step in if the two surveyors can’t agree.
When the Third Surveyor gets involved
The Third Surveyor may be called upon when there’s a genuine deadlock, for example:
- Disagreement about the scope of works permitted under the Act
- Arguments over working methods or safeguards (temporary support, sequencing, waterproofing)
- Disputes about access and how it should be managed
- Disagreement about whether damage was caused and what “making good” looks like
- Fee disputes where one side considers costs unreasonable
- Timing disputes (e.g., inspections, sequencing, conditions)
Either surveyor—and in some situations either owner—can refer a matter to the Third Surveyor (in practice it’s usually done via the appointed surveyors).
What the Third Surveyor can do
The Third Surveyor can:
- Make a binding determination on the disputed point, and/or
- Produce an Award (or part of an Award) dealing with the issue
Their decision is treated with the same legal status as an Award made by the appointed surveyors.
Why Third Surveyor is usually the better first option
Using the Third Surveyor is often preferred because it:
- Keeps the matter within the party wall framework
- Is typically quicker than court
- Is usually less expensive than litigation
- Produces a practical, technical decision rather than a purely legal argument
- Helps avoid a neighbour dispute turning into a long-running legal conflict
It’s essentially a built-in, specialist “tie-break” designed for construction-related disagreements.
When does court come into it?
Court is generally not the default route for party wall disagreements. It tends to come up in a few specific situations:
1) Injunctions (urgent court action)
If notifiable works start without proper notice, or in a way that breaches the Act/Award, an adjoining owner may seek an injunction to stop the works. This can be fast and disruptive, which is why getting the process right early matters.
2) Appeals against a Party Wall Award
If an owner believes the Award is wrong in law or unreasonable, they may be able to appeal the Award in court (strict time limits apply). Appeals can be costly and outcomes aren’t guaranteed.
3) Claims outside the Act
Some disputes spill beyond the party wall procedure—e.g., broader negligence, trespass, or complex damage claims—where court action may be pursued separately.
Key differences at a glance
Purpose
- Third Surveyor: resolves a technical deadlock within the party wall process
- Court: legal enforcement, urgent injunctions, or appeals/claims
Speed and cost
- Third Surveyor: usually faster and cheaper
- Court: typically slower and more expensive (and more stressful)
Practicality
- Third Surveyor: construction-focused, practical decisions
- Court: legal-focused; may require solicitors, evidence bundles, hearings
Impact on neighbour relations
- Third Surveyor: often less confrontational
- Court: tends to escalate the conflict
The sensible approach in most cases
If the issue is “surveyors can’t agree,” the Third Surveyor route is usually the most efficient way to break the deadlock. Court is more commonly a last resort—or used urgently if works proceed improperly.
Need advice on the best route for your situation?
Email mail@howorth.uk or call 07794 400 212 with a summary of the issue (what the disagreement is, what stage you’re at, and what works are proposed). We’ll help you understand whether the Third Surveyor can resolve it quickly or whether legal advice is needed.