Disagreement between architect and builder

m0t

We are having a loft extension put in to our bungalow at the moment. We chose a local architect who had done this conversion in several of the same house in our area. Our builder was recommended to us and was in the middle of the quotes we received.

The builder has been on site for a week and has expressed frustration with the architects drawings and pointed out several mistakes, the worst of which being a chimney that was still in the loft that wasn't shown on the drawings. We ended up losing a small corner of a room as a result as the builder was going to charge quite a significant extra amount to remove it.

I spotted a couple of timber lintels in the wall that the new joists sit on and they were immediately under the wall plate. I asked the builder about them and his answer was that in his opinion they were strong enough, the architect would have seen them when he surveyed as they were visible and having done several before he knew the detail of the construction of these sorts of house. He suggested I contact the architect to put my mind at ease.

The architect has just come back and said they need to be replaced and has detailed what needs going in. The builder has said that what has been specified is massively over engineered and will not physically fit in the wall because of existing steelwork.

He's said that ultimately if the architect and his structural engineer insist then they will have to build it that way but it will add significant extra cost that we can't really afford.

I don't really know what to do, is there such a thing as second opinions in structural engineering?

grumbler

It's typical for architects to over-specify - this costs them nothing and minimises the risks of things going wrong. Quite the opposite, builders like cutting corners and making their lives easier. Either follow the architect's specifications or find a new architect and pay him again. Your builder is likely to suggest you some architect he knows. Your building inspector will check the result against the drawings and specifications.

I don't see how it can be the architect's fault that you will be "losing a small corner of a room". You either pay to have the chimney removed and pay extra or keep it. Yes, the quotations you have didn't take this into account and were lower - not a big deal.

weeg

TBH, I'd trust neither an architect nor a builder to do the job of a structural engineer. So what does the engineer say? And if you don't have an engineer, you need one.
(FWIW I'm an engineer. I work with architects, not for them.)

Ted_Head

It sounds as if you need a structural engineer who will certify the work - you may require Building Consent in which case you will definitely need an Engineer's Design certificate.
It is not unknown for Builder's to suck in air and shake their heads as they add a couple of thousands onto the bill for doing a proper safe job.

Doozergirl

This isn't just a two way builder/architect problem.   It sounds like your budget is under stress here and the surprises you are facing present an issue to the builder, as they need to get paid through this process.  The builder is the one that has to tread the fine line of pulling this in for a budget, whereas the architect doesn't have the same problem! 

It isn't that builders want to cut corners - we all want to do a good day's work and get paid for it and builders aren't excluded from that.    A good builder is one that can be creative and find good, acceptable alternatives.  It's the reason I spend so much time going over client designs - and redesigning them - to protect the budget before we even start.  Of course that involves the relevant professionals and we do have a preferred structural engineer because he is also proactive in finding the best value for money.   

TELLIT01

grumbler said:

I don't see how it can be the architect's fault that you will be "losing a small corner of a room". You either pay to have the chimney removed and pay extra or keep it. Yes, the quotations you have didn't take this into account and were lower - not a big deal.

If there is a chimney breast in the loft and the architect didn't show it on their drawings I wonder who else you think is at fault.

DevilDamo

It’s not uncommon for an architect or engineer to not pick up every single detail prior to builders starting on site. Professional assumptions are made where certain aspects are not clear and of which are to be confirmed on site. Builders would also make certain assumptions prior to starting. It’s very rare that a client would agree to a fully detailed and intrusive survey prior to works starting as this is a disruption.

Unfortunately, these things happen. Not two houses are the same so just because something was done up the road and carried out properly, does not mean it would be the same again.

The main thing is the client, architect, engineer, builder and Building Control work together as you’re all there to achieve the same end result. Others will always blame others but where does that get you? It just delays the inevitable.

grumbler

TELLIT01 said:

grumbler said:

I don't see how it can be the architect's fault that you will be "losing a small corner of a room". You either pay to have the chimney removed and pay extra or keep it. Yes, the quotations you have didn't take this into account and were lower - not a big deal.

If there is a chimney breast in the loft and the architect didn't show it on their drawings I wonder who else you think is at fault.

• Yes, he missed it and didn't show in the drawing.
• As a result, quotations based on the drawings were lower then they would be otherwise.
• This builder increased the price after seeing it. So would any other builder.
• The OP can either pay higher price or "lose the corner".

The error was the architect's fault. Neither the higher price nor the lost corner is. That was my point.

m0t

I get that the higher price/lost corner isn't the architects fault, but it illustrates a lack of care on his part in doing the work which has repeated in other areas as well. The chimney was fully visually apparent and the architect was in the loft for quite some time taking measurements.

The architect is using a structural engineer but won't supply their details, the builder wanted them to carry out a site visit but doesn't seem able to persuade them to.

Jeepers_Creepers

m0t said:

The architect is using a structural engineer but won't supply their details, the builder wanted them to carry out a site visit but doesn't seem able to persuade them to.

I think that's very poor of the Archi.

At the planning stage, I presume the SE came out to look at such things as existing structures, beams etc - he certainly should have, or how else could he spec steels and supports for the archi? I presume these timber beams are over either an opening or windows, so the SE should at least have 'thought' about checking out what was there, and not assumed - especially if there was no good reason for them not to; you say they were visible?

What to do now? In theory, the cost of removing that remaining stack was always going to be there - surely the builders you got out to quote also had a look around and could have noticed? I'm surprised that this is a 'significant' extra cost - surely it doesn't go through the roof, so it's effectively a pile of bricks upstairs which needs breaking up and removing - a half-day's work?! Surely worth it for the extra room?

The timber beam issue is potentially a more complex 'liability' issue to resolve than the chimney. Whereas the chimney was always going to be a certain 'cost' - whether priced for initially or afterwards shouldn't matter that much - the replacement of the timber beams sounds as tho' it'll cost more now than it would have been if factored into the equation from the beginning. Ie - it' isn't just a case of whipping out the timber and replacing it with a steel or concrete lintel, but it now affects other parts of the structural design? Ie - it now involves more changes to the provided plans? In that case, certainly if the arch/SE had no excuse to be aware of these timber beams from the off, I'd say they are surely liable for this 'extra' cost?

It's now more than just the cost of replacing the timber beam with a stronger alternative - which would always have been the case (so that cost is 'yours'). There is now additional work involved, and I'd say that cost is theirs... How successful you'll be at persuading them of this, I dunno - do you have LP on your house insurance?!

Now that the archi has been made aware, and now that they've responded with new requirements to overcome the issue, I suspect the other alternative solution - going with the builder's assurance that it was 'ok - is probably off the table...