Architects mistake on drawing

[ensanguining]

On my extension i'm having build, the drawing states hard core and a solid slab floor up to dpc.
when the building regs officer from the planning department came down to inspect the foundations. He has insisted on a suspended floor due to the ground falling away from the house, where the new building is going. He said that anything above 660mm to dpc could subside, (mine is 1300mm). and my architect should have known this.
I needed to pay an extra 900 pounds for steel, concrete and labour due to going off drawing and the suspended floor wasn't in the original quote.
is there any way i can claim compensation of the architect for giving me bad advice and costing me extra on my build due to his lack of knowledge
many thanks

 

[^woody^]

The building inspector may well be wrong.

There may be other solutions too if retained ground is an issue - one involving £20 worth of mesh reinforcement in the walls

If the plans have been passed by the council, then I'd be asking why the inspector is querying the design now

 

[PRISM]

The BCO is correct, the architect should've known, particularly if he was on site to do the measuring up before he commited "lines to paper", and you have good grounds to claim. The architect should have indemnity insurance, which will cover the claim.
However, if he has worked purely from information and measurements provided to him by you or somebody else, I would doubt the validity of a claim.
Advice to anyone thinking of an extension, always involve a reputable business at the design stage too! It may cost a little more, initially, and it might seem like "belt & braces", but it could save a lot more over the course of the build. It will ensure your project completes without these issues from the start.
There are plenty of "cheap, clueless" architects out there who are happy to take £400 or £500 of your hard earned, and knock out a drawing in a few hours.

 

[PRISM]

Good answer woody!, never occured to me that.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

There is mention of a restriction of 600m depth of fill in the LABC warranty requirements I believe though have never seen it in the regs. And I have never specified a ground bearing slab for such a void anyway so have never been pulled up on it. If it is written somewhere.

In anycase as mentioned by woodplop if the plans were passed (and approved) then whilst the inspector may be prepared to overrule the plans inspector the architect can hardly be held to account as this really should have been picked up by the plans inspector, that is the whole reason you do a full plans inspection.

Even if it does say it somewhere and the arch should have known about it he can hardly be liable for the whole £900, you would have had to pay for a suspended floor anyway.

 

[maltaron]

The OP does not mention that plans have been passed, the extension surely may be built under permitted development and building notice.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

This is true, the OP needs to clarify.

 

[luisdesign]

There would be no claim.

The cost the OP has incurred is not "extra" because if it was always necessary then you would always have had to pay that amount. Look at it this way;

1. Your architect drew construction including the necessary steel and concrete.
- Your builder would have costed for this
- You would have had to pay the £900.00

2. Your architect drew construction not including the necessary steel and concrete.
- Your builder would have costed accordingly. But will have been told by the BCO that he needs to provide the necessary steel and concrete.
- You would have had to pay the £900.00

As you can see, in both circumstances the money described as "extra" isn't actually extra... it was always going to be in the cost so you would not be able to claim this cost. (As an aside, it is normal for a structural engineer to make these specifications not the architect).

In short, the purpose of the building control process is to ensure that the specification and construction is up to par. So the fact that this has been highlighted is actually a good thing.

You should also be sure that the drawings that your architect prepared are actually building control drawings and not planning drawings.

So, the summary is, whilst you would ideally have known about the full cost from the outset this cost cannot be considered "extra" because it would always have been necessary regardless of whether or not the architect put them on his plans... indeed, if the BCO had not picked this up then the liability would actually have laid with the BCO anyway, and not the architect.

If your architect is on the ARB (which he should be) then you can make a complaint to them. They review all complaints and will be able to see where an architect is making consistent and continuous errors or breaches of conduct and take appropriate action. But your first port of call should always be to speak with your architect to discuss the issues.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

- You would have had to pay the £900.00
.

Not necessarily, if there is a proportion of the £900 that is attributed to remedial works only necessary because of incorrect detailing then it is not a simple £900 extra. Anyway the OP needs to clarify a few things, if he comes back.

 

[luisdesign]

- You would have had to pay the £900.00
.

Not necessarily, if there is a proportion of the £900 that is attributed to remedial works only necessary because of incorrect detailing then it is not a simple £900 extra. Anyway the OP needs to clarify a few things, if he comes back.

Yes, that's true... and in that case you could try to make a claim - but only for the cost of the cost of remedial works and not the full amount.

In that case though, if the drawings wre produced under the pretence that the work would be carried out under a full plans application then this may constitute a get out clause for the architect... because you will have used the details in a way which was not agreed or prepared for - perhaps against their advice. (sometimes architects will put in simpler drawings under a full plans application because they know the details will be checked and amended before final issue - whilst building control details under a building notice should ideally be more defined to help avoid any confusion).

So, be sure you are clear on what you have and what was agreed with your architect.

 

[jeds]

What was your architect's response when you asked him about it?

 

[^woody^]

There would be no claim.

Of course there would be a claim

Where a design is wrong, the designer is negligent, and the other party can claim all their subsequent losses - both actual and liquidated damages, and there may be no need to mitigate the loss either.

You can't say "Oh you would have had to spend that anyway". For all you know the contract may not have proceeded if it was going to be more money than the quote (from the plans). If a different floor was required, then the client may have used a different contractor. And now with all the extra work and time, there is the disruption and potential knock on effects of that

The "value" of that unexpected work is not just the £900 the builder wants to do it

 

[luisdesign]

Making a claim and wining a claim are two different things.

It will all come down to the fine details and specifics of course, and the first item that would be countered is that you would always have been in for those costs. In the grand scheme of building and extension £900 should sit well within any contingency that should be in place exactly for things like this.

The second would be that the architect may have been suggesting an alternative method, that the BCO disagreed with.

The third would be that BCO are there exactly to pick up when designs are wrong. working under a building notice does not magically mean that the drawings will all be right - but it means the BCO will be checking all the details as they go along. (whereas full plans applications checks the details beforehand)

Or that any number of further clauses or reasons such as that the builder was building using planning drawings, or details that were not approved or finalised. Of course, as we don't know the fine details (and are only getting one side of the story) its always going to be difficult to say anything with absolute certainty. for example we dont know if there is a structural engineer involved currently working on details, but the builders started prematurely.... or were not given the engineers details...

we just dont know...

but i wanted to provide an alternative to the general posts saying there is certainly a claim because this is likely not the case.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

As soon as there is a hint of a claim an architect is bound to inform his PI supplier, the costs to defend a £900 claim will far outweigh £900 so he would likely just pay a figure just to make it go away. That said, the costs to a claimant would also likely far outweigh such a paltry sum and they would be ill advised to pursue it because of this. A situation like this is more about bluffing than anything else.

luis, just because something is done under a notice does not magically avoid things being built wrong before they are picked up.

 

[^woody^]

It's basic contract and negligence law

The OP has asked a professional person to design an extension. Whether specifically stated or implicitly inferred into the contract (written or verbal),
- firstly the extension much satisfy applicable statute (e.g the b/regs), and
- secondly, it will be used as a basis for a second contract with the builders to build it.

For the first point, as you know, there are several ways to pass b/regs - and if need be the design can be altered. This may or may not have implications, and losses for the OP but could have made the difference between the design going aahead or not for the OP

The second issue is more serious for the OP. As the cost implications and time and disruption can be quantified. This brings about a fundamental change to the OP's contract with the builders, and it could even impact on the viability or progression of the scheme for the OP

We don't need to know anything else - the design did not meet the OP's requirements (satisfy b/regs, be used as a document to get accurate quotes). Breach of contract and negligence