vague quotation - enforceable?

vaio

Surely the structure of a flat roof is the same whatever the actual waterproof membrane used?

Isn't this a "detailing" issue that could easily have been sorted out at tender stage rather than a reason to try and reject his whole scheme?

andybird123

it is a detailing issue yes - there is no tender stage, he's not a builder, he was offering architectural, planning and building consultancy, when I asked him to recommend any alternatives he's basically just said he doesn't know of any


the new architect has made several options known and recommended both a non-felt product and an installer that he's worked with before, with an insurance backed warranty and tech specs that recommend the product and install are good for 40 years


the old guy just told me he'd completed the task as quoted and if I wanted him to change it I would need to tell him what material to use - not what I wanted to hear from a "consultant"


I've seen a couple of other building projects in the past and the architect has always done sketches and asked questions through the process, this guy just went straight to doing a "complete" drawing and won't answer any questions

vaio

I'd assumed that the design would form the basis for a tender stage and the detail change to the type of membrane would be easy to do then.

Sounds like you have now found an architect you have "gelled" with which is good, the original guy sounds more like a draftsman/designer not inclined to do the interactive stuff you are happier with.

I'd guess their respective charges reflect that but even if they don't then I have doubts that the detail of the waterproof membrane is sufficient reason to not pay the original guy. Time (& maybe a court) will tell but I'd suggest you try and avoid the court option

unholyangel

vaio wrote: »

I'd assumed that the design would form the basis for a tender stage and the detail change to the type of membrane would be easy to do then.

Sounds like you have now found an architect you have "gelled" with which is good, the original guy sounds more like a draftsman/designer not inclined to do the interactive stuff you are happier with.

I'd guess their respective charges reflect that but even if they don't then I have doubts that the detail of the waterproof membrane is sufficient reason to not pay the original guy. Time (& maybe a court) will tell but I'd suggest you try and avoid the court option

That's not what you'd be claiming exactly though. It would be lack of reasonable care and skill. When you pay someone to do a specific job, you expect professional standards. Its hardly professional standards if you have to tell them how to do their job.

Given OP specifically said no felt and he then came back with a felt design......if he cant get something as simple as that correct, what else is he going to get wrong?

The fact he cant suggest alternatives or the insurance backed as requested implies again lack of reasonable care and skill. If the guy couldn't do what the OP asked, he should have said so from the start.

Plus I think OP can reasonably demonstrate they tried to resolve it with him as OP made mention to emails. Several times they use terms indicating there has been a LOT of correspondence between them regarding this matter. They also have him admitting he was told no felt and that he cant suggest any alternatives (so even when entering the contract, he was never going to be able to provide anything that conformed to contract).

andybird123

Yes, exactly that, i offered to let him keep some of the money if he would let me use his site survey, but he refused and said he would only accept the full 1250

he hasnt followed any proper protocol in terms of the small claims process either, wont send me any of the info ive requested and has stated that he wont be answering any more of my emails even though i am required by the process to talk to him to avoid court if possible

the new guy is a fully qualified architect and is charging me the exact same fee albeit plus VAT because hes in a partnership that is registered for VAT instead of being a solo

he's also today agreed to testify to professional standards ref architectural services and flat roofs

the first guy advertises himself as an "architectural, planning and building consultant" but he doesn't seem to do any actual consulting in the process