Architect - taken 12 months to get extension agreed

lucylou32

Furts wrote: »

Following the 27 posts I become more confused regarding exactly what brief OP gave to the designer and at what time. It also appears payment has not been rapid, and the work involved in seeking Buildings Regulations have never been paid for. Added to this I do not know if OP has achieved Buildings Regulations for the scheme.

The original timescsale was ambitious, probably too ambitious by far, and appears to have encompassed multiple briefs that bore no resemblance to each other. Added to this it appears the designer had not been instructed to apply for Buildings Regulations. We still do not know if a CCTV survey was undertaken, nor a measured survey, nor even basic levelling.

There have been wise words posted in responses but my gut instinct is not positive over the entire situation. I sense too much fire is being directed at the designer who has not got the opportunity to put across his side of the story.

The time frame has now gone on too long - perhaps OP should step back and work out how to calm the troubled waters.

Only one brief was given, in January, it was repeated a few times, because the architect didn't appear to understand what we wanted.

He was not instructed in January re building regulation because he said it was too early to do so (copied from his email) As discussed, I have not provided a fee proposal for generating detail building control drawings, structural and thermal calculations. I would happy to provide a quotation when planning permission has been successfully obtained. And no, we don't have building reg's yet and this time, I'm making sure we receive the service before paying this invoice.

Calm troubled waters... Maybe, if I wasn't so !!!!ed at being mislead

He also commented in an email, when trying to win our business:

Before appointing them (someone else) I would ensure that they hold professional indemnity insurance and confirm whether the cost includes for submitting the application under full plans. I know you're both very green to the construction industry, however please make sure your Architect includes for the above.

This amongst other comments lead us to believe he understood we had no clue about how to proceed or the process involved and that he was an architect who would 'handhold' us through this project.

lucylou32

MisterBaxter wrote: »

You're right, although as this has only got as far as Planning and Building Regs it is probably salvageable without a great deal of additional work provided the client didn't want to change things back to what they had originally requested but didn't get. If they did want to go back then it's the same as starting over. A builder would probably pick it up and run with it, I'm sure many builders have commenced work with less information. In any job it is always difficult picking up where someone else left off.

@lucylou32 - when you say £900 for the build over agreement; is that his fee or is that a payment to the water authority? It may not have been obvious to him when he first priced the job that an agreement would be needed, he would (should) have picked it up once he started survey work; it would involve some additional work on his part but not vast amounts. Looking at the SWW website the application should have taken 10mins and their fee is £948 so I am hoping the charge he made was just the payment to SWW and that he hasn't charged you £900 plus the £948. THE APPLICATION TOOK ME 10 MINUTES TO REALISE I COULDNT COMPLETE IT, THEN HIM 10 MINUTES TO REALISE HE'D HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK AGAIN (AFTER DROPPING IT OFF WITH ME) AND THEN IT TOOK HIM A WEEK TO COMPLETE AND SEND OFF. THE PAYMENT WAS DIRECT TO SWW

One other point, did he ever say he was an Architect or was it just that he listed 'Architectural Services' as a category of work on the website you found him on? It's possibly semantics but you could provide 'Architectural Services' without being an 'Architect' as you are saying you provide those services often associated with the work of an Architect, you are not saying that 'I am an Architect'. None of that changes that he failed to meet the expectations that you as a client would reasonably have of him. HE NEVER SAID 'I AM AN ARCHITECT' IN ANY EMAILS, BUT DURING THE INTERVIEW PROCESS WE ASKED HIM OUTRIGHT, SAYING WE ONLY WANTED TO HIRE AN ARCHITECT, HE SAID HE WAS. HE ALSO WROTE IN AN EMAIL: I know you're both very green to the construction industry, however please make sure your Architect includes for the above. WHEN TRYING TO PERSUADE US TO USE HIM, LEADING US TO BELIEVE HE WAS AN ARCHITECT.

I think Doozergirl has said it all really. He would have a tough time in Court as he hasn't met the obligations that it would be reasonable to expect of him and the Court will nearly always favour the layperson as they expect the expert to guide the layperson, after all that is the reason for employing an expert.

Thank you, I'm going to request an update from him first, but then I think I'm going with Doozergirls suggested email and report him to the ARB. Thank you again for all the advice. I wish I'd come here to find out how to locate a good architect from the beginning !

lucylou32

lush_walrus wrote: »

If they say they are Architects and not on Arbs lists then they are lying. Report them to ARB and they will be subject to a fine. You are paying for someone who is not formally educated in the form they are pretending to be. People who say you do not require an Architect are quite incorrect, as proven by your experience here.

Thank you, I do intend to do this now, I appreciate the advice.

MisterBaxter

lucylou32 wrote: »

Thank you, I do intend to do this now, I appreciate the advice.

By all means complain to the ARB but if he is not ARB registered and doesn't claim anywhere official to be an 'Architect' then it is unlikely that anything will come of it. They can take a case to Court (they have no direct powers to impose sanctions to non members) if they find that a person is falsely using the title 'Architect' but more than likely they will just write a stern letter, in your case the professional will simply respond to say that he didn't claim to be an 'Architect' but that he provided the sort of services that an 'Architect' may be expected to provide. You may be better focussing your efforts on your family and moving forward, getting the job complete.

It is important however to remember that you specifically stated you wanted an 'Architect' and that he took the commission knowing that; if he did take you to Court for unpaid fees then your defence/counterclaim is that he misrepresented himself.

To move forward:-

a. Do you have all of the plans you need to proceed with the project to completion?
b. Do you have Planning Consent in place with all conditions addressed?
c. Do you have Building Regulations approval in place?
d. Do you have the Build Over Agreement in place?

If the answer to all of the above is YES then I would say you can cut your professional loose and handover the project to a builder to take through to completion; any competent builder should be able to take it from there.

If there are some outstanding issues is your builder able to deal with them; many builders would have provided the whole service themselves so yours may be able to deal with any of the outstanding matters. Have the conversation with your builder.

MisterBaxter

lush_walrus wrote: »

If they say they are Architects and not on Arbs lists then they are lying. Report them to ARB and they will be subject to a fine. You are paying for someone who is not formally educated in the form they are pretending to be. People who say you do not require an Architect are quite incorrect, as proven by your experience here.

Most of this is utter nonsense.

ARB can fine ARB members but would have to take a case to Court to deal with someone falsely claiming to be an Architect. More than likely they will just write a letter. http://www.arb.org.uk/files/files/What%20we%20do%20to%20regulate%20use%20of%20the%20title%20%27architect%27%281%29.pdf

I am a Building Surveyor (RICS) not an Architect and I do work of this nature all the time; you absolutely do not need to be an 'Architect' to do this type of work. I never claim to be anything that I am not and simply use my portfolio to demonstrate my experience. I actually did small scale projects to earn extra money whilst I was training so at that point had no professional level education.

I know of a number of surveyors and builders who have no degree level education or who are CIOB and they successfully deliver projects of this nature, many have nothing more than many years of experience (very important in my view). Again they don't claim to be anything that they aren't.

I also do interim management work for Housing Associations and Local Authorities and often engage Building Surveyors (RICS) for projects far more complex than this, in fact I rarely use what I would consider to be a proper Architect.

There are good and bad in every business and even qualified individuals can provide a poor service, ARB,RIBA, CIOB,RICS all have a sanctions process for members who have committed some sort of professional misconduct. If simply appointing someone who was qualified was a guarantee of performance then the professional bodies wouldn't need a sanctions process.

The only thing I do agree with in your statement is that a person providing a service shouldn't claim to be something that they aren't but that goes for anything.

lucylou32

Furts wrote: »

The original timescsale was ambitious, probably too ambitious by far.

The time frame has now gone on too long - perhaps OP should step back and work out how to calm the troubled waters.

Just to clarify, when I met him in January, I asked if he could do what was needed, in order for the builder to start work by May. He said that was possible. But you're saying that was too ambitious? But that 12 months is too long. What would you consider reasonable?

Furts

lucylou32 wrote: »

Just to clarify, when I met him in January, I asked if he could do what was needed, in order for the builder to start work by May. He said that was possible. But you're saying that was too ambitious? But that 12 months is too long. What would you consider reasonable?

I sense that you will not like my reply, so consider me as playing the role of Devil's Advocate. I am also not of the same opinion as some of the above posts - I am in partial agreement, but not full agreement.

If you went to Court you would indeed be regarded as a layman. But you would be asked some searching and direct questions by the Judge. The Judge is interested in what is fair and reasonable and what ordinary people would expect. The Judge will also look at your designer as an average, and not excellent, professional. You will be on a hiding to nothing to put forward a 100% convincing case.

Your first post says you did indeed meet the designer in January, but it says you instructed him during February. You say that the builder was to start work by May. This means that April was the time frame to commence work. In addition any builder will require a period to organise, mobilise and prioritise works.

In effect you said to your designer...you have a maximum of around 8 weeks to produce three conceptual schemes, present them to me for analysis, fine tune one of them , go forward for Planning, seek full Approval, produce a subsequent set of working drawings, go forward for Buildings Regulations, gain full approval, obtain a Build Over Agreement, and if that is not possible seek a redesign of possibly the entire scheme. Hence the entire process may start again...

This is absurd and to add insult to injury you appear to have been tardy and awkward with your dealings with your designer. For example why the delay with payment? why has the Buildings Regulations work not been paid? why did you disagree on where the buildings Regulations should be submitted to...

To further add insult to injury you have paid peanuts for the service you have received. This is important because a Judge will pick up on this.

You say you were "green" to the building process. A Judge will also pick up on this, but is entitled to ask why you did not follow fundamental, common sense, concepts like phoning the receptionist at the Planning Office and asking "What is a typical time for approval of a local Planning Application". Ditto with processing an application for Buildings Regulations.

It is often said that the "customer is always right". What is not often discussed is the "client from hell". Equally there are many lovely clients out there. I suggest you step back and analyse your role in this sorry saga and work out which category you fall into.

YouKwoteMe

Hi,
I do submissions to building regulations, plan and permissions when there is a need for it, I am a Civil Engineer.

It is all very confusing and lengthy, but, what i have to ask if the person doing the drawings went to the property to do a survey and take the measurements? From there he should have known if there is drains going under the property.

I have seen a few posts regarding CCTV surveys to the drain... I don't think you should do that as it will be a complete waist of money... CCTV survey will show you the inside of the pipe, well if it is blocked I would say you should but for this purpose not at all.
The water authorities and the designer would want is the location of the chambers and pipes instead, geo XYZ, cover and invert levels. This will be to know where all seats in relation to the foundations and the weight transferred from the house to the ground will have an impact to the pipe.
No matter what this can be easily over come by "bridging" the foundation over the pipe, which might require some reinforcement to the foundation.

I would say it all depends on the contract you have with the designer. But it looks like something that can be solved with a few calculations to demonstrate the house will not have an impact on the pipe.

There is a dual opinion in regards to the RIBA or ARB, my view is that it doesn't matter, you have asked him to do the job and he would need to deliver.

The worst case scenario was 8 months for a full P&P and building regs all singed off ready to build. Sometimes it is not due to the designer but the council and the type of claims they receive form neighbours and others...

Again, depends on the contract, with me normally what i do is not to receive any money before it is all approved...

I know that some companies will charge you if you want to cease the contract by not paying, so be aware of that before going to someone.
I would also suggest you have a formal meeting with him to discuss and expose the issue, take a witness. If nothing, issue a formal letter describing the reasons for cancelation, but you will need to ask for the balance (for him or to him) to include an answer dead line.
From there is when you can go towards a resolution, finish off the drawings with him or ask for another designer.

Hope this helps

MisterBaxter

To counter your comments I have commented against your quote. These are the sort of arguments I would put at a professional conduct panel.

Furts wrote: »

I sense that you will not like my reply, so consider me as playing the role of Devil's Advocate. I am also not of the same opinion as some of the above posts - I am in partial agreement, but not full agreement.

If you went to Court you would indeed be regarded as a layman. But you would be asked some searching and direct questions by the Judge. The Judge is interested in what is fair and reasonable and what ordinary people would expect. The Judge will also look at your designer as an average, and not excellent, professional. You will be on a hiding to nothing to put forward a 100% convincing case. - The person commissioned sold his services as being those of a professional in the construction industry and there is every expectation that he should have provided those services in a professional manner. He is also CIOB (so he claims) and as such should be meeting the professional standards set out by his professional body. I think that the Court would start out very much with the view that the professional should be leading the technical elements of the process not the other way around.

Your first post says you did indeed meet the designer in January, but it says you instructed him during February. You say that the builder was to start work by May. This means that April was the time frame to commence work. In addition any builder will require a period to organise, mobilise and prioritise works.

In effect you said to your designer...you have a maximum of around 8 weeks to produce three conceptual schemes, present them to me for analysis, fine tune one of them , go forward for Planning, seek full Approval, produce a subsequent set of working drawings, go forward for Buildings Regulations, gain full approval, obtain a Build Over Agreement, and if that is not possible seek a redesign of possibly the entire scheme. Hence the entire process may start again... - I agree the timetable was most likely never realistic but as a layperson would you know that. Again it was the job of the professional to tell the client that their expectations weren't realistic. If the client was insistent then the professional should have simply refused the commission on the grounds that it wasn't achievable. By accepting the commission knowing the clients requirements they have in effect agreed to meet those requirements.

This is absurd and to add insult to injury you appear to have been tardy and awkward with your dealings with your designer. For example why the delay with payment? why has the Buildings Regulations work not been paid? why did you disagree on where the buildings Regulations should be submitted to... - I sort of agree with this, either pay on time or make it clear that payment is being withheld due to services having not been provided and at least give the professional the opportunity to agree. The client opted to go through the Local Authority to do the building regs as they were cheaper than the Approved Inspector being suggested by the professional. I don't see any problem with this provided the client understood that the Local Authority may take longer to approve. It also seems that the Local Authority wanted more information so it could be that the professional chose the Approved Inspector to get an 'easy ride' (my own opinion of Approved Inspectors is that they can be less thorough, not all of them but there are some). The professional had an obligation to inform his client and discuss options and reasons.

To further add insult to injury you have paid peanuts for the service you have received. This is important because a Judge will pick up on this. - OP suggests that there wasn't much in the prices they were quoted which suggests it was the going price in the area for the type of work. Notwithstanding that the professional provided a quote for the services and should have been confident that they could provide the services to the required standard for the price quoted.

You say you were "green" to the building process. A Judge will also pick up on this, but is entitled to ask why you did not follow fundamental, common sense, concepts like phoning the receptionist at the Planning Office and asking "What is a typical time for approval of a local Planning Application". Ditto with processing an application for Buildings Regulations. - This is exactly why you employ a professional, they should know the answer to this through experience. I work across 6 or 7 LA areas on a regular basis and I can tell you how long they take on average to deal with applications without even having to pick up the phone. I know this through experience and nothing else. I wouldn't expect my clients to have to do this because I am a professional, they have appointed me and are paying me to do that job for them. Again at the outset the professional should have just spoke up and told the client that there was no way the project was achievable in the timeframe.

It is often said that the "customer is always right". What is not often discussed is the "client from hell". Equally there are many lovely clients out there. I suggest you step back and analyse your role in this sorry saga and work out which category you fall into. - You're right there are good clients and bad clients, some don't want to part with their money. Many clients have unrealistic expectations at the outset whether that it timescales or costs. The job of the professional is to set them straight on such things. If the client doesn't want to hear what they are being told then it is the best interests of the professional to simply decline the appointment; there is always someone out there desperate enough for work or foolish enough to take on the commission. It seems to me that in this case the professional should have known what was going to happen and either needed the work or wasn't competent enough to see the failings.

Based on my comments above if this matter did come to Court then an expert witness would probably be willing to state that the client's expectations were unreasonable and unrealistic, the professional would then be left to defend his reasons for taking on the commission without explaining any of this to the client up front.

My opinions are based wholly on what the OP has told us, in many cases there are two sides to the story and the professional isn't in a position to comment or defend himself.

Furts

MisterBaxter wrote: »

To counter your comments I have commented against your quote. These are the sort of arguments I would put at a professional conduct panel.



Based on my comments above if this matter did come to Court then an expert witness would probably be willing to state that the client's expectations were unreasonable and unrealistic, the professional would then be left to defend his reasons for taking on the commission without explaining any of this to the client up front.

My opinions are based wholly on what the OP has told us, in many cases there are two sides to the story and the professional isn't in a position to comment or defend himself.

I am a fellow professional and would tend to agree with you - I differ on minor points with your stance.

The crux is OP's post 19. The designer had a contract to be paid in advance because OP refers to an invoice in January. Yet this does not tally with the designer receiving an instruction in February. This will remain a grey area. Did OP know what she was doing or was she deemed a bad credit risk?

Regardless the designer was paid in April when the brief had been completed. The brief was clearly for a Full Plans submission. OP's post does not mention Buildings Regulations. Hence OP knew that the timescale she was requesting had not been met and was not achievable.

The Buildings Regulations and Build Over appear to be sorted out by August - but OP has declined to answer your clearly detailed post on this matter.

OP has declined to pay for the work undertaken in achieving Buildings Regulations and the Build Over. Hence matters have stalled. Bizarrely OP chooses to ask why matters have taken so long. The reality is the wait from August onwards could be because of her unwillingness to pay.

To quote a cliche "you couldn't make it up".