What a useful record contains
The purpose is to identify the existing condition clearly enough to compare it with the position after the work. The record commonly combines written descriptions with photographs of the areas that may be affected. Existing cracks, damaged finishes and other visible defects should be distinguishable from areas recorded as sound. [2]
Ask for the rooms, elevations and features inspected to be identified, along with the inspection date and any areas that were inaccessible. A set of photographs without locations or an explanation of what was inspected can be difficult to use later. These are practical ways to make the baseline meaningful. [2]
The scope should relate to the proposed work. Rather than demanding a record of every unrelated part of the neighbour's property, ask the surveyor to explain which areas need inspection and why. The Act provides for reasonable inspections and reasonable associated costs where a dispute is being resolved. [3]
Arrange it before the relevant work
Government guidance recommends a record of the adjoining property's condition before the work begins, preferably with both parties able to agree the record. A survey completed only after demolition or excavation has started cannot establish every feature's earlier condition. [1]
Where possible, arrange the inspection while access and visibility are straightforward. Make clear which drawings and operations the inspection relates to, and keep the agreed record with any notices and award. That connects the evidence to the work actually being undertaken. [1][2]
It helps both sides
For the adjoining owner, the record can help demonstrate that damage was not present beforehand. For the building owner, it can distinguish existing defects from later changes. It is evidence, not a promise that every subsequent crack was caused by the project or that no hidden defect exists. [1]
If damage is alleged, its cause and the appropriate remedy still need consideration. Section 7 requires compensation for loss or damage resulting from work executed under the Act; the existence of a schedule does not replace that test. [4]
Consent does not make the record pointless
Owners who consent to the notice can still arrange a condition record. Consent avoids a dispute about the notified work at that stage; it does not remove the building owner's compensation duties if qualifying work causes damage. [5][4]
If access is not agreed, do not invent a complete schedule from a brief external view. Record the limitation and obtain advice about any applicable statutory access right or other agreed arrangement. Section 8 has conditions and notice requirements; it is not unrestricted permission to inspect somebody else's home whenever convenient. [6]
Keep the record in its proper role
A visible-condition schedule is not structural design, building-control approval or a substitute for investigating a suspected structural problem. Those questions should be referred to the relevant professional. Preserve the original record and add later dated observations separately so that pre-work and post-work evidence remain identifiable. [2][1]