Architects mistake on drawing

[freddiemercurystwin]

We don't need to know anything else

Come on woodplos, even for you that's pretty naive.

 

[luisdesign]

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.

Agreed on all accounts.

@woody

It is important we know more because there are some things that don't tie up. Under a building notice, an architect does not need to produce any drawings other than a site plan. So why in this case are there details?

Did the OP use drawings which were not for the purpose of building control (ie, used outside of the scope they were designed for) or maybe the contract between the two was for the plans to be assessed under full plans, but the OP decided against this and went through a notice (ie, used the drawings outside of the contract).

You can't be so certain about things without knowing the details of events and certainly without knowing the details of the contracts.

 

[^woody^]

Come on woodplos, even for you that's pretty naive.

I don't think so.

Ignoring the issue of the plans being passed and then the BCO querying it on the site visit, or the other structural/design possible remedies, purely from a contract point of view, if the design is wrong and will not pass building regs, then he was negligent and is liable for the costs the OP will incur as a result

 

[^woody^]

It is important we know more

Did the OP use drawings which were not for the purpose of building control

I think its safe to assume that the builders are working to drawings, and that the drawings should depict an extension conforming to b/regs so that the builders can build it.

Building notice or not, if the designer has produced drawings then they are either working drawings or should display prominently that they are not working drawings.

 

[maltaron]

It seems no one has asked what the extra cash is for. I would consider that a joisted and boarded floor would be considerably cheaper than 1.3m of fill, which would need to be compacted in 150mm layers, then o'site DPC, concrete slab and screed.

 

[jeds]

Anybody can claim. Anybody can waste their time doing whatever they like. The question is; what has the OP lost? Answer is, not a lot. If the floor had been designed correctly it would have cost more. The OP would have been paying. Unless the Op has a contract (which he hasn't) that says the designer will guarantee his original design and stand by the costs, he doesn't have a hope. It's the OPs extension why does he think somebody else should pay for part of it?

 

[noseall]

Unless the Op has a contract (which he hasn't) that says the designer will guarantee his original design and stand by the costs, he doesn't have a hope.

Surely the drawing is their 'contract' no?

Design work is a massive part of a designers job so you would expect something as glaring as a floor design to be correct and as a customer, would trust your designer to get something as basic as this, correct.

Would a designer advertise "we do not guarantee our designs"?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Out of interest nosybonk, you ever heard of this one?

 

[tony1851]

Out of interest nosybonk, you ever heard of this one?

What one?

 

[noseall]

Out of interest nosybonk, you ever heard of this one?

What one is that Freddy...?


I'm already £400 out of pocket because of a design error on my current job!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Err, the one in this thread!!!!

 

[noseall]

I have suffered loss due to design error yes. An existing roof was assumed to be 25 degrees which was being extended. The architect sent his drawings himself to Trussform for a squint and they sent him back an approval and a price. The drawings and a copy of Trussforms' quote was passed on to me because the architect new i used Trussform. I submitted my quote to the customer and got the job.

Turns out the existing roof was 21.5 degrees and meant the rafters had to be booted up from 147mm x 38mm up to 170mm x 47mm at a cost increase of £400. The architect was miffed and duly offered to go halvies and set about a plan of recovering the rest elsewhere. I declined the halvies but was satisfied we could recoup elsewhere - i.e. a fully functioning soakaway exists so no need to build another - hopefully.

I have also seen suspended floors drawn where infill exceeds more than 600mm and where the architect would otherwise draw a conventional solid floor slab system.

Staffs b.c. would have picked it up immediately in any case and bounced it straight back to the designer, who spotted it at the survey stage regardless.

Ultimately however, the customer should be the one paying for the work they have done. It is a shady area and one that should be approached diplomatically. Extras that come about due to unforseen circumstances, like those below ground, are impossible to predict or quote for.

Glaring or schoolboy design errors should be mitigated by the disigner.

 

[jeds]

You can only claim damages where there has been a loss. What's the loss? If the architect had got it right it would have cost the higher amount and the OP would have paid it. I'm not defending the architect - he's obviously a dick and deserves to be flogged. But the OP hasn't lost anything.

Noseall, I don't know why you are accepting a loss on that roof. It's not your problem. But again, it was picked up before anything was paid for so your client hasn't really lost anything. If the pitch had been right - the client would have paid the higher price. Would be different had the roof been ordered and then found to be wrong - but it wasn't.

I don't know what clients are on sometimes. Why do they think builders and architects should be funding their jobs.

 

[tony1851]

You can only claim damages where there has been a loss. What's the loss? If the architect had got it right it would have cost the higher amount and the OP would have paid it.

I can see your point here to an extent - but;

assume the OP had scraped together every penny he could to build the extension on the basis of the original drawing, and could not borrow, beg or steal a penny more. He would run out of money probably at roof level so would be unable to finish the extension?

An extreme case, I know, but not impossible; who would be to blame then?

 

[jeds]

I still don't see how the client loses. What would he have done if the budget cost had been four hundred quid more? Bottom line is it's his responsibility to pay for his extension.