Engineer trying to charge me again after he didn't mark drainage and manhole covers on?

childminder87

I know there are a fair few trades people here so would like some opinions before I tackle the issue. We have been trying to get an extension for the last 13 months. (We currently do not have a fully functioning kitchen after most of it fell apart- naively thought we would be looking at a few months before we started). We have been chasing architects and engineers and finally last summer had plans in place. However, despite site visits and my husband and I pointing out current waste pipes, water pipes and manhole covers neither architect or engineer saw these necessary to mark on the plans. I trusted their judgement as I am not a qualified engineer etc. so they would know exactly what building control and utility companies need. I received invoices and paid these. Got to building control phase and they queried the absence of manhole covers as they need to apply for permission from the water board to build near a shared drain. which they claim both should have known. The engineer said he would be able to mark this on using the architects measurements (architect came down and did another site visit and measured but advised that anything required below ground wasn't covered by them but would need engineer). Plans submitted to water board and engineer has now slapped a second invoice on me (not discussed beforehand) for a couple of hundred pounds. I feel that I shouldn't be having to pay for something that should have been included in the original plans and definitely not something that was carried out with no awareness of further charges. Is this standard practice?? I just want an actual functioning kitchen 😪 

Doozergirl

The architect would put those on drawings if they did the building regulations drawings as well as planning drawings.    They don't exactly need to be on planning drawings as the planning department aren't concerned.  
 

The structural engineer wouldn't do anything about the drains unless they were instructed to.   Little bit unusual to involve them, to be honest.  It seems fair that if you then commission them to do something that they then charge you for it.  

Did the architect do building control drawings for you?  

It's you (or the architect or maybe a fabulous builder) that organises a build over agreement, not building control themselves.  You would be charged specifically for it.     

childminder87

thanks for responding. with it being a single story extension coming under permitted planning it didn't need planning permission. The architect explained that that being so we'd only need planning drawings as she's done quite a few with the builder we are using (we've used the builder before so happy there). The engineer she recommended though never replied, neither did the engineer our builder recommended. So we ended up with an engineer who worked on a neighbours. Their build was essentially the same as ours and went up last year with the only snags being waiting on materials. However, our manhole cover for some reason is oversized for what was needed. Building control have been fabulous to be fair, they came down to have a look at what the hold up was because they knew it had been months without us getting anywhere while the architect and engineer passed the buck on the manhole cover. Our builder told us to wait and speak to building control so we did and it was BC who then told me I needed to go back to engineer as it would affect the foundations, and architect to come up with detailed plans between them. I copied everyone in on all these emails as I didn't want to miss any info off. BC inspector said really both of them should have at least marked on the drainage and manholes knowing it would affect the build and both said they would sort it. Architect said she can mark on the manhole but anything below ground is engineer work and he should have been getting the measurements that would affect his foundation design because her and myself are not qualified in structural engineering. 

BC have submitted the plans to local water board (who have no record of this manhole cover ever existing) on our behalf. 

Doozergirl

Hmm.  Regardless of the unfortunate amount of time spent faffing around, it sounds like the engineer was subsequently engaged to produce drawings for the foundations and there's a cost to that.  SEs do charge by the hour so you won't have paid twice for it.  

childminder87

I've just been back over my original emails. So essentially the engineer did make a note of the manhole cover but took no measurements and added a note saying "for localised treatment" which building control then said wasn't sufficient to submit to the water board and said that drainage should have been marked on because these "clearly would impact on the foundation design and the external walls and the engineer would have known this so not sure why he's not included the relevant detail". Verbally the engineer told me the manhole cover "wouldn't be an issue". I paid the engineer for his original plans back in June, so he's now had to include the detail that it appears should have been included before and charged me for "amendments". If I'd changed the design then I totally accept I would be liable for further costs but in this case it sounds like it's something he's forgotten to address in enough detail expected by BC and water boards which surely an engineer should be familiar with requirements and level of detail needed? 

weeg

Without seeing both the plans and photos of the manholes folks here can only speculate.

If the foundations are complicated by drainage runs, then it's reasonable to charge more to design the foundations. If they'd caught this at initial drawing stage, your first invoice would likely have been bigger than it was. So you may well be paying about the same spread over two invoices rather than one.

It's not standard to include drainage detail on SE drawings unless there is a specific reason to do so, so it's not weird that it was overlooked.

Section62

childminder87 said:

I paid the engineer for his original plans back in June, so he's now had to include the detail that it appears should have been included before and charged me for "amendments". If I'd changed the design then I totally accept I would be liable for further costs but in this case it sounds like it's something he's forgotten to address in enough detail expected by BC and water boards which surely an engineer should be familiar with requirements and level of detail needed? 

The starting point in a project is to do a survey to work out what the parameters and constraints are.

The architect should use that survey to design the optimum building in terms of client expectations/cost/planning/legal considerations.

The structural engineer adds their expertise to turn the architect's design into a buildable structure.

I agree that the manholes should have been included on the plans before - but that goes back to whoever was responsible for doing the survey.

The architect shouldn't be trying to design things ignoring what might be under the surface.  It is nonsensical for them to claim that "...anything required below ground wasn't covered by them..." - they cannot do their part of the job properly without taking that into account.

I agree with Doozergirl's post - the engineer was asked to do work which wasn't included in the original package. You won't have been charged for what wasn't done, you should expect to pay for it now.

childminder87

thank you for your feedback I really appreciate it. I will settle the invoice then. I think the fact building control said both engineer and architect should have included it as they would have known it would impact on their work made me question why that now appeared to be my fault and therefore me paying to re-do plans. The architect hasn't charged any additional and said that the engineer shouldn't be either as it's not an amendment if he was already aware. A friend who is a builder said that they would normally get plans with any obstructions marked on and plans to fix/work around and that he wouldn't be happy to pay it either. 

I've always just trusted professionals whose skills and expertise far outrank my own so not questioned what they need to consider (although I had mentioned the manhole he'd said it wasn't an issue so I didn't push it further). When he did a site visit, saw everything and then did the plans I (clearly naively!) thought were accurate for the site he visited. I think it's also frustrated me that the engineer didn't actually mention these additional costs until he asked me if I'd settled the invoice I never received because he sent it to building control instead apparently. I like to know upfront what I will be paying and have communicated any progress to everyone, copying everyone in on emails so we are all on the same page. 

From the sounds of it the architect mucked up by not putting the manhole covers on the original plans, and then the engineer despite seeing the manhole cover at site visit just decided to do the foundations not taking them into account from the architects lead. It does make me wonder what the point of the site visit of the engineer was though as I was charged that too in the breakdown but it seems to have contributed very little to his work given that the things that impact his work now need adding. 

Appreciate the feedback but glad I won't be going through this again it's by far been the hardest to deal with.