Paid for and received set of BC plans for a flat conversion.
Details in the plans for 'Fire' and 'Sound Resistance' simply had a note saying 'See attached details'.
These details were not attached with the original plans, or, despite several subsequent requests - ever received.
Presume the Architectural Technician (AT) should not have omitted such details.
From a legal stand point, how does one know that the details that a AT might supply for such important areas such as Fire, are correct.
Details in the plans for 'Fire' and 'Sound Resistance' simply had a note saying 'See attached details'.
These details were not attached with the original plans, or, despite several subsequent requests - ever received.
Presume the Architectural Technician (AT) should not have omitted such details.
From a legal stand point, how does one know that the details that a AT might supply for such important areas such as Fire, are correct.