Property Law and Practice - Report on Legal Liability Assignment

Property Law and Practice - Report on Legal Liability - Assignment Example Act, 1996 states that no landowner can carry out construction or repair work to his property, which might impact an adjacent property without adhering the procedures laid down in the Act. An owner who is willing to initiate construction work stipulated under the Act must serve a notice to adjacent owners about their plan in the mode as prescribed in the Act. If a minor repair work is carried on the party wall, there is no need to serve notice under the Act. The Act covers both residential and commercial properties. (Wood et al, p.205). It is to be noted that adjoining owners may accept or disown what is proposed. When the adjacent owners oppose, the Act offers a way for solving the issues. The procedure set at the Party Wall Act is distinct from getting planning approval or approval under building regulations. Under section 2 of the Act, the owner should serve a notice to the adjacent owner where the proposed construction work is to a subsisting party wall even where the work may not extend away from the centre line of a party wall. It is not necessary that a party wall shall inevitably to have a border line running through its centre line but can stand astride peculiarly over it. A owner should serve a notice on the adjoining owners of a party wall about the intended construction or excavation and where a disagreement arises as regards to a party wall under section 1, or when no written consent has been received within fourteen days from the date of service of notice under section 2, then, issue has to be resolved with the help of a surveyor through a dispute resolution mechanism. The primary aim is that by placing the matters out of the parties’ purview, and assigning them to the independent experts, the Act offers Owners with a magnitude of certainty and minimises the peril of work being prolonged by protracted discussions. The Act places more onus on surveyors as the surveyors are required to comprehend where Act is applicable, and what has to be adh ered so as to make sure that a property owner adheres with the Act as the non-adherence will have disastrous outcomes. In Roadrunner case, Court of Appeal held that non-compliance of the Act will not only attract damages for non-adherence but also the Court will not take a lenient view of the failure by a party to adhere with the Act. Thus, this case stresses that a property owner who fails to adhere with the provisions of the Act is accountable for damages suffered by another party in spite of nonexistence of concrete corroboration that repairs carried out by that party really responsible for that damages. (Hannaford & Stephens, 2004, p.xiv). The above Act provides some rights to building owners who intends to carry out some sorts of structural changes to a subsisting party wall in addition to the rights available under common law. In Holbeck Hall Hotel, the Court of Appeal viewed that there is a measured obligation of care or fairness between neighbours to assess the respective pr ivileges and commitments between neighbouring owners. If a building owner must be careful not even start repairing his own side of the party wall without informing the adjacent owners of the proposed repair or construction. (Hannaford & Stephens, 2004, p.xiii). It is to be noted that though the Act does not make it compulsory to serve a notice on the adjacent owners, but adjoining owners can prevent the construction work through a court injection or through other legal means. Further, it is to be noted t