Poole BH18 - Dorset | Party Wall Consultancy
Poole - Dorset Party Wall Consultancy (close to Broadstone and Upton)
Background: When dealing with a question regarding who is responsible for repairs to a wall, the first step is to identify the position of the wall, does the wall sit on the land of one of the two owners or does it straddle the boundary line? Assuming the wall is a Party Wall the second issue that must be addressed is, which of the parties makes most use of the wall, and which of the parties is most responsible for the disrepair of the wall.
We were not appointed by either party. This was merely a consultation.
There was one adjoining owner, to the left, who was insisting that although their garage enclosed on the wall, they were not responsible to put the wall in repair and demanded that the neighbour to the right pay for the full cost of repair.
Advice was requested with regards to a boundary wall which the neighbouring garage to the left was partly enclosed upon. Could the garage owner require the owner of the boundary wall (to the right) to make repairs / contribute towards repairs to the boundary wall.
Conclusion:
After inspecting carefully on site, the conclusion was reached that the slight horizontal cracking to the the wall constituted minimal disrepair and was not detrimentally affecting use of the wall by the garage owner. The likelihood was that the swelling timbers of the garage roof was responsible for the slight disrepair and it could certainly be argued that the garage owner was deriving more benefit from the wall, considering that it was serving as the right flank wall of his garage. Hence, it would appear that the neighbour to the left would have been more responsible for repairing the wall and required to make the larger contribution to its repair.
On further investigation it became clear that the wall was not just acting as a boundary wall but was actually retaining the higher land of the neighbour to the right. Retaining walls are generally built on the land they are retaining so it could be assumed that the wall was not straddling the boundary line, but rather was located wholly on the land of the neighbour to the right. Whilst it was certainly the case that the neighbouring garage to the left was enclosed on the wall, this was not sufficient to render it a Party Structure. The Party Wall Act describes a Party Structure as one that separates buildings or parts of buildings. Hence, in order to qualify as a Party Structure, the neighbour to the right would have had to be enclosing on the wall too, which was not the case.
Hence, the conclusion was that the wall was not a Party Wall as it did not straddle the boundary line. Neither was it a Party Structure as only one of the two neighbours was using it as part of their building. The wall was therefore considered to be wholly in the ownership of the neighbour to the right on whose land it was located. The neighbour to the left had no rights under the Act over the wall and could therefore not insist that the neighbour to the right contribute towards the cost of repairing the wall.
Had there been a danger of the wall collapsing and posing an actual danger to the neighbour to the right, then under tort there would have been an obligation to put the wall back in repair. But there was no indication that the wall was posing any danger.