£1500 for a new steel that architect and structural eng missed on plan
We are having an extension and loft conversion and are half way through. Building Regulations have come to assess/inspect the structural parts of the build so far. He flagged up a query on our existing part of house namely the arch to the thro lounge/diner. The structural engineer and architect have said there is a £150 design fee. So although we thought that was remiss of them, we still paid. Our builder now says that it'll be £1500 to put this new steel in!!! We're still in shock as new 'jobs' keep cropping up and this is a major amount for us on top of £1600 for pointing too.
Could someone please advise us on whether we have to pay this or can the architect and/or structural engineer split the costs? They both have their formal spiel to cover themselves but we, the customer/client has to fork out this. We realise there has to be contingencies for unforeseen works but we would imagine that 'assumed' calculations should still be addressed for a four storey house that might have a compromise to their existing supporting walls.
Any advice would be welcome. Thank you.
Comentarios (18)
moiraford
hace 7 añosHello, couple of questions...do you have a contract with the architect? Did the architect do a survey of the existing house before he gave you the design for the extension. On what basis are you paying the architect?kellyapte agradeció a moirafordJonathan
hace 7 añosHave I understood this properly?..... Halfway through some major building works it transpired that work done previously was not completed to code.
I feel that your dispute is not with current trades but with either your former builder or the previous homeowner who had the works done. Despite the frustration of finding additional money at an already expensive time I think you will be unable to recoup this money unless you have previously used a structural engineer (perhaps when you bought the house).kellyapte agradeció a Jonathankellyapte
Autor originalhace 7 añosThe steel mentioned is for the existing non-renovated part of the house. We paid our architect fully to survey and assess our home and draw up full plans for the full look of the footprint and rooms not affected by the renovation. So every part of the house was accounted for on the plans. We paid the structural engineer through our architect and now gave him the extra £150 design fee to provide the new steel calcs for our builder. The wall/beam in question is the existing part of the house (through-lounge/diner) arch which is now compromised as there is an extra storey above. It is the loft conversion, thus the reason for us having to strengthen this with a new stronger steel. We feel that this is definitely something that should have been accounted for in the whole plans/structural engineer's calcs as it's a low bearing wall with extra weight now. So yes, this 'finding' is a consequence of the extension (the loft). Do you think we have some case in either coming to a half and half compromise on this hefty bill or do we have to pay it all?
moiraford
hace 7 añosHi masklin, thanks for the clarification. In that case your architect as principal designer is liable and should have take this into account when drawing up the plans. It is their responsibility to know the steel is required and the engineers job to calculate the load required. The structural engineer also missed it and is not covered in glory either. I would go in hard and refuse to pay it and ask for it to be referred to RIBA arbitration service. Good luckkellyapte agradeció a moiraford- PRO
User
hace 7 añosI agree with with Moiraford, if the house was surveyed it took account of the existing house, the architect would have known as it should have been obvious that there was already a steel in the through lounge. It is a basic error to assume that an existing steel would be strong enough to support another floor. The existinng steel would have been calculated for one floor above not two. Go for the architect.
kellyapte agradeció a User kellyapte
Autor originalhace 7 añosThank you so much... really hope we get this sorted smoothly. Wish I could copy you the email our architect and struct engineer sent to us to cover them... quite curt and obviously they conclude that they are right. But I will check with the RIBA FAQs if they know something... our building regs man even used a term like 'assumed measurements' to deflect responsibility if the steel needed upgrading! So not entirely sure we'll win this. Thank you though for the positive advice.
moiraford
hace 7 añosHi if your architect is a member of RIBA (it will be on their website) then with or without a contract you are entitled to go to arbitration. Also, have a look at CDM regulations which also apply to domestic builds. The "assumed measurements" are not yours but your professional consultants on the project.
kellyapte agradeció a moirafordianthy
hace 7 añosÚltima modificación: hace 7 añosWe have just had to swallow an increase in steel costs. Our situation happened when the builder did not read the structural plans properly and only accounted for 3 beams in the project infact we needed 11 beams! The costs were clearly not in his quote so we had no option but to pay for the additional steel or stop the project with the rear of the house exposed! We did however get a reasonable quote for the extra installation costs. I know exactly how you feel - it's frustrating and makes me feel angry that the contingency was spent on an item that should have been included in the original budget.
As others have said it should have been picked up by the structural engineer/architect. Best of luck getting them to absorbs some or all of the costs.
kellyapte agradeció a ianthykellyapte
Autor originalhace 7 añosMany thanks for all your advice. I think we will now read up on RIBA and the CDM regs as to what our possible chances are at getting some help with this job financially as we now it needs to be done. It is great to know of these forums for help.
Kind regards.
kmizzlee
hace 7 añosHullo Masklin, it does sound like a tricky situation, and I'm sorry to hear about these additional costs. Building work is always expensive to begin with, and additional and unexpected costs are never welcome. In respect of whether there is scope to obtain costs for this from your architect and structural engineer, this will most likely come down to the original appointment, their scope of involvement in the project, and whether they where direct appointments with you - or whether the SE was appointed through the architect.
If the architect and SE were appointed to undertake planning and building regulations drawings with no exploratory or invasive works (ie stripping back existing structure in the house to assess structure before the project was tendered) then there will have been a number of reasonable assumptions on their part, which will only have been assessed when a main contractor started. The conversion of the attic would have added some additional loading to the property, but certainly less than adding a whole additional storey. There is every chance that additional bedroom space at this level would have less weight implication than someone stuffing their attic full with storage. SE's are notoriously cautious, so their assumption for the attic should have taken into account any additional loading, and if an existing (previously completed) opening needs to be reinforced, it might suggest that the existing opening was not designed appropriately to begin with. The flaws in existing structural design would generally fall into 'unforeseen' items, which is generally where contingency funds are intended for use.
However, as others have suggested, if you are unhappy you can always pursue this further through the ARB, or RIBA (if your architect is a member of these bodies) or through the body that the structural engineer belongs too - but it is always worthwhile starting a discussion with the architect and SE and asking them to clarify how this happened. They will no doubt want to try and address this and have the opportunity to resolve this with you direct. Check your appointments with them, and what they were briefed (and paid) to undertake on your behalf. It might also be worthwhile trying to source any information you can about the original works and structural beam that got installed. Hopefully there will be a positive outcome from it all. Good luck! K :)kellyapte agradeció a kmizzleekellyapte
Autor originalhace 7 añosOur architect is actually an architectural technologist! I don't think he is part of RIBA. He was recommended to us. He said he worked closely with the council and has lots of contacts that we need for our project.
Rob Holloway
hace 7 añosIf this is outside of the original scope of works then it is not really the designer's fault, unless you asked them to carry out a full structural survey beforehand...
kellyapte agradeció a Rob Hollowaykmizzlee
hace 7 añosHi Masklin,
If he isn't an architect, then he won't be a member of the RIBA. The title 'architect' is protected (only people trained and qualified as architects can call themselves this) whereas the function of architecture is not protected. Your architectural technologist may be a member of an alternative body, but if he and/or the structural engineer were not appointed to do full structural assessment, it would be unlikely that you be able to secure any contribution towards the additional steel work.kellyapte agradeció a kmizzleekellyapte
Autor originalhace 7 añosThank you for all the advice... I think now that we have come to the conclusion that we will have to forfeit this £1500 outlay. The structural engineer is fiercely defensive even when we have just asked for advice but we'll put this down to difference of opinion and communications. But we appreciate the advice for sure!
Rob Holloway
hace 7 añosIn my experience, once the legal profession are involved a £1,500 variation to the contract will be the least of your worries. I am an ARB registered architect with 20+ years post-qualifying experience and carry £2m PI insurance, before anyone asks.
PROLariko Architects
hace 7 añosWe are registered architects and often see that RIBA is the first port of call for clients when discussing architects and their services. Although RIBA can be useful, they cannot really become involved if the architect in question is not a chartered member. ARB (Architect's Registration Board) is the governing body for the architecture profession. Anyone using the title 'Architect' who isn't actually qualified as such is actually breaking the law under The Architects Act 1997. Please ensure that any appointment of an 'Architect' is checked with the ARB here http://www.architects-register.org.uk/ to ensure that you are dealing with a true professional.
Volver a cargar la página para no volver a ver este anuncio en concreto
Cupola Design Ltd