Why is Architect reluctant to give me CAD drawings? and architects' qualifications?

[Brigid]

Hi,

We have just obtained planning on the basis of very basic drawings which were done up by an Architect - Can anyone tell me why there should be a reluctance to pass on the CAD drawings to me so i can seek quotes myself. I appreciate there could be some difficulty if these drawings were to be relied on by someone supervising the build but they are very simple. To get them would allow me send them by email to get quotes for windows, slates etc. We have paid all fees so surely I should be entitled to them?

Also this architect was to be for design only - there was never any question of her being involved in supervision of the building. Surely copyright cant be an issue as anyone can get a hard copy of the drawings by going to the Planning office. Any insight would be appreciated...

I am also in a quandary about whether architect or engineer is the best way to go in terms of supervising a build. I have been reading ONQ's postings with interest. I am of the belief that an Architect may be brilliant on design and compliance issues but how do they know for instance what type of timber should be used for the roof. How do they assess the load bearing qualities? Do they just rely on the Building Regs for all such matters, unless they deem something to be of a structural issue. And surely the whole of building a house is a structural issue.

We have received a fee proposal from one Architect who seems to be a very decent guy and would be very precise and particular and we would like to go with him but he didn't really give me any comfort on how he is qualified in relation to the structural considerations of house buildings.

Brigid.

 

[Superman]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

He is reluctant to pass on CAD drawings for copyright reasons.

As to whether an Architect or Engineer is best for you - it depends on your situation. If it is an "ordinary" construction, there may be no need for an Architect - and either would do.
If it is meant to be special or is "different", you almost certainly need an Architect - otherwise there will be unintended consequences all over the place.

Regarding structure, if the loadings are standard, there are standard tables in for example the Homebond book - so anyone (even an Architect!) can could work it out. If loading is unusual, you may need an Engineer. In your situation the Architect either sub-contracts the bits that are problematic, or gets the Client to hire an Engineer.

 

[DBK100]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

He is also reluctant to pass on the CAD drawings as the drawing can then be changed without his consent. If you want the drawings in digital format then ask for the drawings in PDF format.

Correct.

An architect should never issue drawings in any format that can be edited. His professional indemnity would normally preclude it.
Any recipient could alter the drawings (even through error) and this could lead to all kinds of problems for a contractor or client relying on them.
Drawings will only be issued in CAD format to a design team consultant - someone who will be responsible for their own errors.
The architect can issue drawings in PDF format, as they can't be altered.

In terms of employing an Architect or Engineer, the decision has to be based on your particular requirements.
If design and implementation of the intended design through to the detail of construction is your concern then employ an architect. The architect will advise you if an engineer's input is required for any particular areas.
The architect's written specification and details will cover the majority of the build (including what type of timber should be used for the roof!).

If 'Architecture' and design quality / detail are not your highest priorities and the house as simple as you say, then maybe use an Engineer.

Many people prioritize design, execution of design, sense of space, light, choice of materials, design of details etc. and some don't consider such issues at all. It is entirely up to you and your preferences.

Good luck.

 

[Brigid]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

Many thanks for the PDF format idea. I really just want the drawings in email-able format. As regards an engineer or architect - I appreciate what you say and I know the decision will be ours. We want someone who will be able to supervise the build a little bit more than just for stage payments and will be able to advise us regarding quality of materials and their price etc. Someone who will be able to challange the builders if necessary but not fall out with them. We know that what we are looking for is more than just stage payment supervision which engineers may charge about €2000 for but I think that fees on the basis of a percentage of a build cost is the wrong way to go - there is no incentive to help the client keep costs down. I may have to start a new thread asking for recommendations for an architect or engineer in the Cork area.... have been asking friends and relatives and just about everyone i know for a recommendation of an engineer and guess what, people just say "well we used whoever but I wouldn't recommend him"...

 

[DBK100]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

Brigid,
Take a look at this thread if you haven't already: Key Post What to ask the architect at our first meeting

Choosing can be difficult and letters after a name are certainly not any guarantee of quality, compatibility or indeed cost! There are good & bad architects and engineers.

Read the above thread and most importantly, take all the time you need at the start of this process to find the person you want to work with.

DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie

 

[onq]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

Hi, We have just obtained planning on the basis of very basic drawings which were done up by an Architect - can anyone tell me why there should be a reluctance to pass on the CAD drawings to me so i can seek quotes myself. (snip)

Your architect shouldn't be reluctant to do this once you have paid him for the work he did.
The issue of copyright infringement may arise if someone you give them to might use them on another site for his own profit butthat's what copyright law is for.
For a nominal amount your architect could license to someone to use his drawings solely in connection with this project and no other development on any other site.

The issue of liability doesn't pass AFAIK back to him if someone amends his - presumably compliant - drawings and makes them uncompliant.
Its possible someone could seek to attach liability to him they try to pass the changed, non-compiant drawings off as his drawings.
This would constitute a fraud and would be actionable in court.
A comparison with the original would prove the position.

While DBK100's suggestion of usign PDF files in your case may be appropriate I want to comment on the use of archtiect's drawings in general.

Circulation of CAD drawings does usually not give rise to problems - quite the contrary.
On one job when I superimposed drawngs I found that the engineer had mysteriously shifter a steel support 225mm.
This was after getting his structural GAs back from him - the same structural drawings had been based on my editable CAD drawings.

This wouldn't have been as readily apparent from a PDF side-by-side comparison.

I have passed on drawings to third parties at site sell-on following obtaining a permission on several occassions.
I have accepted third party drawings for my own use, including survey drawings and as-built drawings and fire cert drawings and planning permission drawings.
I have circulated my CAD drawings to other members of the design team to streamline production at tender and construction stages.
In the situations noted above PDF's are of limited use and no greater liability appears to arise.

DBK100 ifyou know some secret masonic or MRIAI reason for nto doing as I do, or can show a primae fascie case for transference of liability, I'd appreciate it if you could post it.
My experience suggests this is not the case, but I'd be happy to stand corrected.

FWIW

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent persons should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
My best advice is that you should retain a competent building professional to advise you on these matters.
Edit/Delete Message

 

[Superman]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

The issue of liability doesn't pass AFAIK back to him if someone amends his - presumably compliant - drawings and makes them uncompliant.

Correct. The only potential issue is if drawings are issued without a "Drawings are for Planning purposes only", then the person relying on the drawings may be able to impose liability on the architect.

 

[Superman]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

We know that what we are looking for is more than just stage payment supervision which engineers may charge about €2000 for but I think that fees on the basis of a percentage of a build cost is the wrong way to go - there is no incentive to help the client keep costs down.

The simplest way would be if you can agree a fixed fee or agree a percentage of the lowest accepted tender (fixed at the date of tender).

Fixed fee is more common. If unusual extra work is required you could agree an hourly rate.

 

[onq]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

Correct. The only potential issue is if drawings are issued without a "Drawings are for Planning purposes only", then the person relying on the drawings may be able to impose liability on the architect.

I don't know relevant case law on the matter, but I'll note two things:

1. If someone ELSE issued the drawings having amended them to make them non-compliant, but presenting them as if they came from the original architect, this would constitute a fraud and the original architect would more than likely be held blameless, assuming he could show that the amended drawings weren't the origial drawings and that the original drawings were compliant.
2. If the original architect issued planning drawings and these were used as construction drawings there should be no liability arising as planning drawings show WHAT you can build, not HOW to build it - two line walls cannot be held to show what form of building construction should be used.

In my opinion the more techical information you put on planning drawings the less freedom you have to build at a later date, for example in terms of changing specification.
I understand - and please correct me if you can show I'm incorrect in my understanding - that Section 4 (1) (h), like the Schedule of Exempted Development, can only be invoked once the building is completed.
So if you change from cavity walling to timber frame construction and you've unwisely included a full set of details in the planning submission drawings, you won't be able to comply with standard condition 1 wording;
"the development to be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged".

It may be that putting a disclaimer on as you suggest might protect the original architect.
In my opinion this may only hold if there are no errors in the drawing that might affect building regulations.
For example, if;

• there was no Part M compliant approach to the house
• the toilet wasn't sized correctly
• a balcony rail height was inadequate
• a stair had more than 16 risers or was too narrow

then in my opinion merely putting the fig leaf of a disclaimer over these issues of design - as opposed to contruction - would be no defense in law.
The last two, for example, constitute matters were safety is compromised and the designer is obliged to consider this from the word "go" when designing a house.

FWIW

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent persons should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
My best advice is that you should retain a competent building professional to advise you on these matters.

 

[DBK100]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

(snip comments best summarised as Sharing CAD information with design team Members is OK, but its probably unwise to allow laypersons to circulate them)

I think we can agree on this

ONQ.

 

[DBK100]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

The fraudster could claim that the Architect...

While this is starting to sound rather sinister, the point is sound & simple:

By not issuing editable drawings outside of the design team the architect is making sure that he will never have to waste time or money claiming / counter-claiming / defending...against that worse case scenario "fraudster".

Prevention being infinitely better than cure

 

[onq]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

If you hand over your CAD drawings and someone alters them and subsequently tries to pass them off as the original, it would be next to impossible to determine which drawings were the originals. The fraudster could claim that the Architect made the initial mistake and changed the CAD drawings to cover up.

A quick look at the properties tags of the archived originals and the subsequent drawings would sort that out.
But there are packages that can change even locked PDF files too [shock horror!], so again, you're looking at checking file versions.
And as noted elsewhere, someone could forge a drawing from scratch in a CAD program and save it as a forged PDF, so even this isn't 100% secure.

The only real check is the provenance of the drawing, who asked for it, supplied it, checked it before building from it, et cetera.
It should be emphasised that its the contractors responsibility to check the design drawings for any inconsistencies and to BUILD in compliance, and this is what he warrants he has done when offering his Contractors Certificate for the Schedule A assurances.
To fully comply with his duties under the law this amounts to a contractor either being knowledgeable enough to check the drawings himself or retaining the services of someone to do this.

You can argue that this is fine where there is a contractor involved, but surely this cannot apply to a self-build job but this doesn't appear to be the case.
The self-builder who doesn't retain a designer on site and directly retains sub-contractors is deemed to be the Contractor under the Health and Safety Regulations.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent persons should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
My best advice is that you should retain a competent building professional to advise you on these matters.

 

[onq]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

While this is starting to sound rather sinister, the point is sound & simple:

By not issuing editable drawings outside of the design team the architect is making sure that he will never have to waste time or money claiming / counter-claiming / defending...against that worse case scenario "fraudster".

Prevention being infinitely better than cure

DBK100 I think this actually guarantees very little.

In terms of malign intent, consider someone who forges an entire document in CAD and issues it fraudulently in PDF, expertly copying your letter head et cetera.
But there is a difference between dealing with idiocy and criminal intent.

It only takes one desk jockey or a more-than-obliging member of the secretariat to break protocol and your drawing has "escaped" and you're back to seeking protection in law and establishing provenance and the duties of contractors.

So for me its human error, as opposed to malign intent that we need to watch out for.
In an era where the security protocols of entire companies are compromised by human error as opposed to vulnerable security systems, its not beyond the bounds of possibility to suggest that prevention cannot be assured.

It is therefore foreseeable and in that regard you must rely on other means to ensure that the correct knowledge is "out there" including issuing not just to one other office but many [the design team] as well as to the client and any sub-contractors who need the information.

A piece of important information told to one person doesn't insure competent work is done.
Widespread and early circulation of drawings allows peer review by third parties to forestall errors going to site but its not perfect.
Perhaps you can see why, having helped develop and train in staff for a 100-person I decided to become a sole trader twelve years ago.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent persons should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
My best advice is that you should retain a competent building professional to advise you on these matters.

 

[onq]

Re: CAD drawings and architects qualifications

I believe that the suggestion of using PDF's was mine and not DBK100's.

Yes, I stand corrected

ONQ.

 

[DBK100]

Re: Why is Architect reluctant to give me CAD drawings? and architects' qualification

Sharing CAD information with design team Members is OK, but its probably unwise to allow laypersons to circulate them

I think we can agree on this

ONQ.
______________________________


Anyway, my point is that the best way to drive is to drive defensively.

 

[rockofages]

Re: Why is Architect reluctant to give me CAD drawings? and architects' qualification

If anyone wants to edit drawings they can do so without great effort.

PDF is very handy as all the Adobe packages can edit it.

Hard copy can be scanned and therefore digitised, and edited as either a raster format or put through raster-to-vector conversion software and edited in a CAD package or whatever.

Refusing to issue digital copies isn't protection against anything. Issuing digital copies would probably be seen as progressive and flexible.

 

[onq]

Re: Why is Architect reluctant to give me CAD drawings? and architects' qualification

Thanks rockofages.

I wasn't aware that you could do so much with PDF files.
I think people set a lot of store by the fact that you can set passwords to prevent tampering.
But again, you can forge a document and set a password, so it really comes down to malicious intent and ability.

To be fair to DBK100, his comments centre on general good practice in an era where 30-40% of new houses are self-build and you have poorly trained or incompetent people getting to site going to site on the basis of planning drawings.

Its one thing for a team of professionals to do this, with some structural and typical details and a decent 1:20 section and a compliant specification.
Its quite another for a layperson first time builder to do this off his or her own bat without either the necessary training or experience.
I am not suggesting the OP was going to do this, but it happens.

Coming back to the original point, where the drawings are only at planning stage they may address some matters of design and may imply construction, but two lines with blank space between them define a wall, not a form of construction.
Someone who goes and builds a particular form of construction non-compliantly or incompetently based on planning drawings in my opinion has little or no comeback.
If a detail fails - if, for example a cill, threshold, ope reveal or eaves starts to leak - and they look around for a designer to blame, they should be looking for the person who designed the detail or installed it and that trail may lead straight back to them.

Self-builders with no main contractor are deemed to be the Contractor under the health and safety legislation.
In my experience its the contractors responsibility to build compliantly and to bring any discrepancies in the drawings to the architect's attention.

Where the self-builder has designed the house and used someone without a formal qualification in design or claimed and proven experience in design [i.e. an architect, or someone claiming to be an architect], they may also be adjudged to be the Designer.

For self-builders saving money in the short term by not appointing an architect to design the details, and/or an engineer to design the structure and/or not retaining a main contractor may prove to be unwise.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent building and/or legal professional should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on these matters.

 

[Brigid]

Re: Why is Architect reluctant to give me CAD drawings? and architects' qualification

Hi,

Just wanted to say thank you for all contributions. My architect just emailed me the drawings - in CAD format I think (as i cant open the attachment) which suggests that she mightn't have been reading all these postings ... Also I may have been unfair saying she was reluctant to hand them over - I think now it may be just that she didn't get around to it. It has been very interesting though... thanks again!!

 

[RKQ]

Re: Why is Architect reluctant to give me CAD drawings? and architects' qualification

I never issue CAD drawings to Clients.... and never will.

What genunine Clients has a registered copy of a leading CAD package? Needed to open a CAD drawing.

I have been asked on three occassions, each time I was given the excuse "We need to design the kitchen units to fit exactly" or "The underfloor heating company need the original plans". I sent pdf plans but subsequently seen "others" supervising the project and applying for Retention permission for numerous changes.

Two of these "silly billy" Clients were trying to get the original CAD drawings to negiotate a reduce fee to the "others" for redawing the house. The third client was happy with pdf drawings ( which can be easily converted to CAD drawings )

In my experience Clients that request CAD format drawings ALWAYS have alterior motives.

Note copying drawings in pdf format off Council sites, to use in your drawing is a breach of Copyright under the Act. It is possible to do with a converter program but thankfully pdf scans tend to have dust & shadows on them - these convert in the drawing process - resulting in a slow conversion and a "dirty" drawing. I only ever tried it on my own drawings.

Quality also suffers from print to photocopier to pdf scan. Line quality suffers slightly but this is exagerated in the conversion process, resulting in a poor quality CAD drawing.

 

[IPH]

So your client pays you to make some drawings but decides to continue the project without you and you think that is unreasonable? If your goods are no longer fit for purpose (client can't use them) maybe he is entitled to a refund under consumer protection legislation.

As to liability, a 3rd party is at greater risk from using another's drawings, if faulty, than the original architect is from the drawings being altered.

There are also some unqualified opinions on copyright law. Read this piece before deciding to withhold drawings.

"However, it is well established that the legal owner of copyright may not also be the beneficial owner, and that the copyright is held on trust for some other party. This can occur by an express creation of trust or, of greater significance, where the author of the work has been commissioned to produce the work: in such a case it will commonly be the case that the beneficial interest in the copyright is owned by the commissioner, and accordingly that the author may be called upon by the commissioner to assign the legal ownership of the copyright to him/her."