Architects mistake on drawing

[tony1851]

What if the client had to borrow the extra £400 from Wonga to finish the job?
At two-million % interest presumably it'd cost him more than £400 in the end?
I don't know who would be liable (if at all) - I'm not a lawyer or accountant.
It just seems to me that the arch. has mis-led the client through lack of basic knowledge.

 

[noseall]

We were lucky that the trusses could be man-handled into position due to the fact that the existing flat roof was left in place and that we lifted them into position prior to scaffold erection.

Otherwise the costs incurred would have been much more.

Jeds, all prices were agreed and budgeted for based upon a drawing done by a professional.

Designers can not wash their hands willy-nilly using get out clauses, they must shoulder some of the blame and costs. It is not only budgets that are affected but schedules too. The customer can not stump up for everything.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Any client who embarks upon a building project without 5-10% contingency is an idiot. Not defending the architect but that's what a contingency is for.

 

[noseall]

Any client who embarks upon a building project without 5-10% contingency is an idiot.

Idiotic is a bit harsh, more like naive.

Some people have never had building work done and i see this often, particularly with first home buyers. I always inform clients that there could be additional work and strive to be as transparent as is possible.

I have also done jobs for customers who simply have got no more cash other than what they have budgeted for. Even to the extent where they have forfeited the latter stages of a build to get say, the shell built, because of unforseen costs.

Some designers (not all) are office bound, will not leave that office and refuse to even so much as wave their hand out of the door. Passing the drawing over to the customer with a note saying "builder to check all dim's" and then retreating to the safety of a warm office whilst never setting foot anywhere near the project again, is not acceptable.

I had to practically lever one out on site last year because of a boundary anomaly. He did try and wriggle out saying "builder to check this" and "builder to check that" until i reminded him of his 'duty of care'. And it was raining too.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Passing the drawing over to the customer with a note saying "builder to check all dim's" and then retreating to the safety of a warm office whilst never setting foot anywhere near the project again, is not acceptable.

I had to practically lever one out on site last year because of a boundary anomaly. He did try and wriggle out saying "builder to check this" and "builder to check that" until i reminded him of his 'duty of care'. And it was raining too.

If a designer is paid a fixed fee to provide a Regs package for example and that includes no site supervision then why should they then have to do any site supervision?

 

[tony1851]

If a designer is paid a fixed fee to provide a Regs package for example and that includes no site supervision then why should they then have to do any site supervision?

That's right. Faulty initial measuring and consequent dimension errors are one thing. But, if doing a Planning/BR 'package', you will still get clients saying 'will you come out and have a look at this or that' and seeming surprised that one won't jump up every 5 minutes to check things.
Some even expect you to check the ground conditions before concreting -
no way!.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

That's right. Faulty initial measuring and consequent dimension errors are one thing. But, if doing a Planning/BR 'package', you will still get clients saying 'will you come out and have a look at this or that' and seeming surprised that one won't jump up every 5 minutes to check things.
Some even expect you to check the ground conditions before concreting -
no way!.

I don't know if you're being facetious or not tony but anyway I never get any calls to supervise on site unless they've asked for that in the first place but then I do a good job in the first place, do you have other experience tony?

Any domestic job being built by a competent builder should run without site supervision unless the designer has done a crap job.

 

[tony1851]

No, I wasn't being facetious. There is obviously a world of difference between just drawing plans and steering them through building regs., and the full-supervision thing, and that is reflected in the fee.

But sometimes totally unforseen things crop up (eg poor existing brickwork at a beam bearing). The builder advises it needs re-building: client thinks he is being fleeced, and then expects the plan-drawer to come out and give an opinion - without charging extra - because "you drew the plans".

In those instances, I advise them to have a word with the building inspector.

 

[jeds]

I agree with Tony on that. I get calls from clients all the time wanting me to just look at things they're not sure about. And from builders sometimes as well. I don't mind too much as long as it's within reason but sometimes it gets ridiculous. I think sometimes they just want somebody to talk about their project to.

noseall; I understand the fixed price thing but the error was with the drawer - you didn't draw the plans so why are you taking the hit.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Cos he's a good egg of course!