The factor of lack of notification is not constantly threatening in nature and can usually be the result of bad or non-existent proposals from the owner designer structure or group of customers. Unfortunately, the lack of conscience is a legitimate reason not to serve the party`s partition notice. The law on the party wall does not refer to retroactive notices or rewards. In previous cases, it has been shown that work can be authorized after the fact, but only if the evaluators believe they can be authorized – this will not be the case if they have caused damage. If a neighbour has already completed the associated part of his work, it is a matter of expecting consequences like. B damage to the property of the neighbouring owner. If the neighbours cannot agree, it must be judged. The official law does not refer to these distinctions or opinions. There are cases where the work was granted retroactively, but it depended on the auditor`s opinion if he felt that the authorization was in a position (which is not the case in the event of injury). If a neighbour has already completed the part of his work, it is a matter of dealing with the possible consequences if the property of the adjacent owner has suffered damage.
However, if the neighbours fail to reach an agreement, the case will have to escalate and be tried. This is a prize for the wall party that will be put into effect once the work of the mural is partially or completely completed. If they were to build a similar expansion in the future, they would have the right to cut off the part of their neighbour`s foundations that the project plans to make, subject to further notification. In this kind of situation, it is better for the neighbours to agree to build a single wall that crossed the border and use it as a party wall between enlargements – even if it is easier said than done. The difference between this case and Louis v Sadiq is that the works of Louis v Sadiq could never be authorized by the surveyors because they were clearly unsatisfactory. For example, no shoring was provided if the front wall of the house was removed. This case seems to indicate that retrospective awards are perfectly valid, contrary to what is thought. As the judge said: 1. The biggest misunderstanding that people have is not to obtain official consent if their neighbour has given permission. Official consent can only be given if the law on the walls of the party is served, even if you have the most wonderful neighbors. Oral approval will not suffice, you must complete the communication.
They will then receive a two-week period during which they can confirm their written consent. If you extend z.B the back of your house and there is no agreement of the wall party for the rear extension, you will have no security against possible damage. The party mason will not be able to help because the work began without the agreement. 2. Some people think that the law does not apply to an extension on your own country – another widely held belief. Section 6 of the Party Walls Act states that even if the construction is in your own case, the law recognizes that it can damage your neighbor`s foundations.