Does a Party Wall Notice Need to be served to a Leaseholder

[jazzythumper]

We own the leasehold of a ground floor flat, and next door as recently been sold with planning permission to extend the rear.

A 1 and a half storey wall divides the two properties where this extension will be built on the firt and second floor, but the planning drawings show this as being removed. The planning permission was secured before we bought the flat.

We would like the wall to remain in place I know that they would have to serve a party wall notice to the freehold, but would they have to serve a party wall notice to us and if so would we be able to disagree with the wall being removed.

Any light shed on the above would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Jazzy

[leaseholdanswers]

That rather depends on who owns the wall and who is resonsible for its upkeep. Planning merely gives consent for things to be done in planning terms not to take over and knock down walls owned by someone else. Talk to your freeholder.

[jazzythumper]

Thanks for the reply

I completely understand that planning and this issue are completely separate, but if you could answer my question on whether the owner of the property next door (if the wall is a party wall and jointly owned by them and our freeholder) has to serve a party wall notice to us as a leaseholder?

Thanks

Jazzy

[leaseholdanswers]

I can answer your question when you can answer mine- what you postulate is not enough.

[Lawcruncher]

Yes, notice does need to be served on you.

A notice needs to be served on the "adjoining owner" defined as "any owner of land, buildings, storeys or rooms adjoining those of the building owner and for the purposes only of section 6 within the distances specified in that section"-

"Owner" is defined as including "a person in possession of land, otherwise than as a mortgagee or as a tenant from year to year or for a lesser term or as a tenant at will".

[leaseholdanswers]

Yes but this is an external wall.

It may not even be a party wall as ownership and party status is assumed, which is not that common. Section 1 would apply if its for example theirs and they are building up to the bundary.

As regards section 6 even if the wall is not party, if the building in which the OP resides reserves the structure to the freeholder and the OP has a typical eggshell lease, they often do not qualify as an adjoining owner as " their property- walls a structure foundations- is not affected, the freeholder's is"

I would serve a section 6 but the problem here is whether the OP can insist on service which depends on the above .Of course penalties are few and far for failure to serve and failure to do so is not fatal. Moreover the concern is about the access they might have to their land under the 92 Act.

I’d suggest a knock on next door and have a chat.

[Lawcruncher]

Yes, notice does need to be served on you.

Change that to:

If notice needs to be served, it needs to be served on you.

[jazzythumper]

I have checked our lease and the wall is marked on the plan and appears to be owned by the freeholder. And our demise is shown on the internal edge of this wall. I would assume that the freeholder in this case should be notified? And that we don't have to be notified?

Is this now the case?

[Lawcruncher]

I am no expert on the finer points of the Party Wall etc Act, but I would have thought that notice still needs to be served on you. If you refer to the definition in post 5 I think that you have to be an adjoining owner for the purposes of the Act.

[Gordon999]

You can ask this company :

http://www.vincent-brown.co.uk/faq.aspx

[leaseholdanswers]

This is a case of cats spiders and flies, one catching the other.

The cat, the owner next door, is an adjoining owner to the spider the building landlord, and the fly, the leasholder, adjoining the spider. The cat and fly are not adjoining owners.

If however the cat is doing work which involves the wall owned by the spider eg tieing into it, the fly becomes an adjoining owner.

[Lawcruncher]

I think that the cat and fly are adjoining owners according to the definition above. The fly is in possession.

[leaseholdanswers]

But his possession is not affected except as outlined above. He cannot be an adjoining owner until something that he adjoins is affected.

[jazzythumper]

I have contacted the owner of the neighbouring house at he would like to take down the wall and rebuild it as it is in terrible condition. I have established that the wall is a party wall/fence it straddles the boundary line.

I am happy for him to take down the wall and rebuild it to the same height but I presume this requires my consent in order to do so.

There are some items such as a greenhouse and shed that abut this wall so in order for him to rebuild the wall these need to be taken down and put back up again. He is happy to do this at his own cost and provide alternative storage in the mean time.

I am happy to have a written agreement with him about what works are to be done etc. But wonder if this is fine to be done outside of an agreement involving party wall surveyors etc.

Can I reasonably refuse consent for this, and can I use this as leverage to charge a fee for the inconvenience of the wall being removed, and replaced?

Your help so far has been helpful and further advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Jazzy

[leaseholdanswers]

You are not an adjoining owner, the owner of the intervening building is - plaster you, structure him, and adjoining outside wall neighbour-, and is it your wall to have a discussion or agreement over?