Hello, I am in the process of finalising the design on my selfbuild dwelling. I am very interested to know people's experiences as regards their architects coming to site to check the work that has been done by the builder/roofer/excavation or other works. Giving the lack of input (or none in some cases) from Building Control in the Rep of Ireland, I am conerned that defects are not picked up or snagged on time by the project supervisior (architect/engineer/surveyor). Hopefully I can be reassured otherwise but based on some of the sub-standard work that is obvious at times, it's reasonable to be concerned, in my opinion. I have heard of disputes going to court whereby a project supervisior has signed-off a dwelling with serious defects uncovered some years later through 3rd party independent inspection. Hence my concerns. Some feedback would be great and I believe would help others as well as myself. I'm sure there are many out there who are in the same boat.
Hopefully your architect / designer is going to produce detailed construction drawings (as distinct from the pretty architectural drawings) whereby the project manager can gauge progress and compliance.... Lovely classy well-drawn plans are all well and fine but if the house is not built properly then what's the point in employing the same designer for over-seeing construction...
Stick with an engineer to oversee your build
We hired architect to draw plans and oversee our extension
We paid him for the plans but told him where to go when he looked for payment for overseeing the build we had to point out to him (after hiring a surveyor to confirm our fears!) the massive slant in the floors, the pitch of the roof was wrong, the walls were not straight, no ventilation + the whole extension was not built to the dimensions in his drawings!!
He still wants to come and sign off on the build after we told him all this!!!!
H
Stick with an engineer to oversee your build
We hired architect to draw plans and oversee our extension
We paid him for the plans but told him where to go when he looked for payment for overseeing the build we had to point out to him (after hiring a surveyor to confirm our fears!) the massive slant in the floors, the pitch of the roof was wrong, the walls were not straight, no ventilation + the whole extension was not built to the dimensions in his drawings!!
He still wants to come and sign off on the build after we told him all this!!!!
H
Architect was a member of RIAI but when I phoned them to make the complaint I was told he was no longer a member! he has also worked for a government body (which means he would have to be qualified)
The surveyor we employed gave us recomendations to fix the roof, we just have to live with the other problems!
Maybe we should get Architect to sign off on build which wont be worth paper its written on but It might give us some comeback if problems arise in years to come?
My brother is just starting a self build and he is only using Architect for drawings and engineer to sign off on each stage!
Hogg
will that mean then if there was a defect in the build which only reared its head a few years after engineer signed off that there is no liability on the Engineer or would engineer still be held accountable?
to answer the question "how ell do they check"... you need to have clearly indicated what you have engaged the architect / engineer to do.... this is vital...
the vast majority of self builders only engage an arch / eng to inspect the work at various stages in order to (a) drawn down mortgage payments and (b) offer an opinion on compliance with planning permission and building regulations..... this engagement usually means about 6 visits to the sit. With this low number of visits it is disingenuous to expect teh arch / eng spot issues that many have been covered up from one stage to the next. also, on small domestic builds, one stage does not have to end before another begins, then usually overlap each other ie felting and slating of roof many be occuring at the same time as first fix elec and plumbing... or insulation installation may be happening along with plastering stage.... so its impossible for a certifier to see all the factors that may cause problems in the resultant house....
if this is the engagement (which it is mainly) then the arch/eng can only comment on the work down in regard to building regs an pp.... there are many issues that will not be picked up on because its not in the remit of teh arch / eng... this issues will be squarely down to the contractor / project manager (and remember, with a direct labour build teh client IS the project manager!) to spot and resolve. issues such as bad plasterwork, untidy insulation, incorrect electric and plumbing (as teh arch / eng is NOT a professional plumber / sparks!!). Many certifiers will also require teh subbies to sign their own certs of compliance to cover themselves.
Of course, if the arch / eng is engaged to 'project manage' the build then the responsibilities are on them.. no question... but youd be looking at a very high engagement cost to do this. Such high costs are generally not paid out....
The Architect’s Certificate of Opinion on Compliance with Building Regulations is exactly that, an Opinion. The Architect certifies that all work he has ‘inspected’ is in accordance with minimum standards. But lots of things fall between gaps and do go unseen.
That is the beauty of the Building control system in the UK. The Council Inspector comes out to check these things after the contractor has submitted his mandatory notice prior to covering up certain defined work items. That way things get caught regardless of the architect's professionalism or level of service.
One would like to be confident however, that when they do carry out their stage inspections,.
thats a very very small and simple example to show the difference between an 'inspection' engagement and a 'supervision' engagement
its the builders responsibility to build in accordance with the building regulations!!
But the problem arises when the builder is not as competent as he should be. A good builder will be fully conversant in regulation requirements, but I have seen too many who just don't know what they should know or possibly are more concerned about cutting corners to shave costs.
So, while the builder is 'legally responsible' to build in accordance with minimum standards, this does not always happen in practice. There are many excellent small builders out there, - but also there are too many who have problems fulfilling their obligation.
I think we would all agree that chasing an elusive builder to repair faults would not be fun and chasing him through the courts could well be an expensive nightmare. I would not rest happily in the knowledge that a 'legal obligation' is enough.
It would be preferable if it could be ensured somehow that things were just done the way they should be in the first instance.
So in the absence of an effective building control system:
1 - Rigorous selection criteria for a competent builder.
2 - Have the builder tied (through contract) to an explicit set of construction drawings and specification of materials & workmanship.
3 - Appoint some qualified person to undertake a suitable number of inspections to include covering up of critical work items.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?