Architect problems

B

Budgie

Registered User
Messages
89
I am having some problems with an architect.

To explain background briefly:

1. Want to renovate a house.
2. Paying a "full price". I did get cheaper quotes but this architect was recommended to me.
3. Very good for starters. Quick turnaround, quick responses to e-mails, plans very good, plans submitted quickly.

I was invoiced for the first part of the work and paid immediately.

It was the planning process where the trouble started.

1. Planning was refused outright. Looking at the planners report, it was clear that he was not at the races.
2. Did not do his homework about similar designs in the estate.
3. We decided to resubmit. I asked for a quote for resubmitting (several times). I was told it would be "minimal" as there were only tweaks and not to worry.
4. He hired a townplanner (which we paid for) who was excellent and communicated to us that the first application had "no chance".
5. We have resubmitted and I have received a bill for about 50% of the cost of the original submission. We are waiting on the outcome of the planning process. I am alot more confident this time.
6. I told him that I would pay a portion as the bill was outrageous and not what I was expecting.

I have heard nothing since.

My questions are :

1. If we are granted planning permission, are we obliged to use him even if there is a satisfactory resolution of the current billing? The contract was "beginning to end". Can he interfere with the process? Can he stop us using his plans (i.e. providing them to a builder or surveyor?)

2. If we are not granted planning permission, can we bring the plans to another architect and take it forward?

Many thanks in advance

Budgie
 
That was the plan. He was signed up to do so but he has not been paid for it - we have not reached this point anyway.
 
If there is a mortgage involved you will need someone there to supervise the works and issue certs. It wont be that easy getting someone else but certainly not impossible either.

If you feel he did not do his work correctly you could ask for a reduction in the fee. Im a bit confused as to why an architect needed to employ a town planner for renovations to a house. Surely he was qualified enough to know what was going to be acceptable to the council.

My advice would be to talk to him and see how you get on.
 
I wouldn't hire him for the supervision if he is so obviously incompetent - he doesn't seem to know the planning regulations, does he know the building regulations?

What kind of contract did you sign? Are you sure it's enforceable? Probably not.
 
Thanks for your responses.

In answer to the questions, I am not sure what he knows and does not know. He was quoting all sorts of regulations to us. I think he decided he would push the envelope (maybe they all do it) and see if he could get away with it. Perhaps it was either cockiness or naivete.

The townplanner he employed (for the second submission) was excellent. She did a huge amount of work (chasing down elusive Council officials) and charged a grand for it. Even the quality of the second submission was far superior to the first. A non expert like me could even see this.

I paid him for the first submission so that money is gone. He charged me for the second submission also which has not been paid.
 
The architect would have copyright in the drawings and so you would be unable to use the design without his permission.

Normally it is possible to get one architect to do the first stage and then say "goodbye" - the first stage of a project (the stages being 1. to Planning, 2. Working Drawings, 3. Supervision) involves the least risk (it is difficult to be sued for this stage unless you miss a deadline which is particularly important) and so most architects are (reasonably) happy to see you get someone else for the later stages. It can be difficult enough to get someone else to take up this later work though.

You should be able to get the original drawing if you keep your architect on-side - but that would probably mean paying him for the 2nd design.

It would be difficult to argue that your architect was negligent simply by the fact that he was unable to get the original design past planning. It can be difficult enough to second guess Planners at times and each Planner has individual preferences as well. In particular if the architect has to do work in an area with which he is unfamiliar. Even expecting the architect to check up previous Planning Permissions for the area would be unusual.

Also regarding Extopia's comments: Not getting something through Planning is not necessarily an indication that he would not be competent to do working drawings/supervision. Depending on his own working experience he may have worked previously in another office exclusively doing working drawings, on site etc. Though it obviously does raise questions, especially when large sums of money are involved.
 
Superman said:
Even expecting the architect to check up previous Planning Permissions for the area would be unusual.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. The architect was hired to design a house. Any building design is supposed to take its environment into account, and this includes any planning issues that would be involved. The architect, in his role as the OP's planning consultant, should have arranged a pre-submission planning meeting with the local council and discussed his proposals with the officials, then made any necessary modifications to the design.
 
For various reasons, planners make an architects job very difficult because they generally wont speak or communicate with them. this more often than not makes the architect look useless or incompetant because he has to start the project completely blind in terms of planning and this is why your architect had the fore sight to employ a town planner (who planners will speak to because they are of the same kind) to obtain planning for this job.
 
Agree with Extopia - it is completely reasonable to expect the architect to research past planning decisions in the area. Most county council websites post applications on line, with drawings and other documents available to view, therefore making it easy for someone to research the kind of development that will be acceptable in the area.
In cases where there have been no planning applications made in an area it is difficult for the architect because, as Moylan1 says, planners simply won't talk to architects.
The best way forward is to try and continue with the original architect, let him know you are unhappy with his performance so far and come to an agreement on how you should proceed - because it will be very difficult to get another architect to take on someone else's design.
 
moylan1 said:
your architect had the fore sight to employ a town planner (who planners will speak to because they are of the same kind) to obtain planning for this job.
Click to expand...
At the second attempt he had the good sense to employ a town planner which wasn't foresight.

As the application had to be resubmitted I dont know why he seen the need to impose additional expense on his clients by going down this road as he would surely have known at that stage what was wrong with the first application and what was going to be acceptable the second time round.

He wasnt at the races.
 
Thanks for your responses guys. Very useful.

I would expect for a "full price" I would get a full service and things have been short on this front.

By the way, I am a professional consultant myself (not an architect or anything to do with property) and in 10 years working have never had an invoice quibble with clients. Everything is agreed upfront and the work is done on that basis. Why can't this apply elsewhere?
 
How much were the FULL fees? Was it a percentage or a Euro sum?

To get the townplanner second time round is reasonable. You might have gotten permisssion first time around so it could have been a waste of money then. Now he brought out the 'big guns'. To make his point.

Generally I agree the best way forward is to try and continue with the original architect, let him know you are unhappy with his performance so far and come to an agreement on how you should proceed - because it can be very difficult to get another architect, infact he would have to release the drawings to the second architect before the second architect could use them. Copyright stays with the architect.

The second application should have been done on a time basis (hourly fee by hours) for the changes done to the original application and then the paper work (copies etc.), should have been less than a grand.
 
Our architect designed our house and planning was approved, on serviced site with a conservative design. Originally he was going to do the supervision also but we found him difficult to work with, and hard to get hold of. Didn't like our ideas and told us so. The fee was okay although regret paying part cash, don't think it is a good idea in hindsight. We have employed an engineer to supervise building sign offs etc and with a good builder all should go okay. We are wondering if the engineer can do working drawings as we do not really want to go back to architect at this stage. The engineer has done a full specification and mentioned the builder should be able to work off original plans as submitted at planning stage.
 
Rena, Thanks for your response. The arch fee was percentage of improvements. Quoted standard RIAI rates etc. The original fee was low five figures. The price for the resubmission was half that (just under five figures). Definitely was not a grand.

My view is that if pp was obtained I would prefer not to use the arch rather to use an engineer to supervise.
 
You should check if he is a member of RIAI and then contact them for a scale of their members fees. Even if he's not a member check the fee scales.
 
nutty nut said:
You should check if he is a member of RIAI and then contact them for a scale of their members fees. Even if he's not a member check the fee scales.
Click to expand...

Architects Fees of 12.5% (+ VAT) of construction costs is not uncommon, so a contract sum of €75,000 would mean Architects fees of €8,750 + 21% VAT = a low 5 figure sum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top