Professional negligence against architect

I'm curious as to what the OP has in writing from the architect confirming he accepted his mistake and offered a refund. If this was not offered without prejudice, then he's a bit silly. Couple of questions:

1. Architect fees + damages <£10K ?
2. What opportunity did the architect have to correct the mistake?
3. What opportunity did the architect have to address the repair and approve the rework costs?

you can't go ahead with remedial work and expect someone else to pick up the bill, if you don't give them a chance to remedy.
 
oldbutnotdead said:
The £7200 extra- can you break that down into unavoidable costs (ie what had to be done to make the scheme work with that half brick wall) and avoidable costs (for instance if you paid £1000 for the original steelwork which turned out to be useless and you had to spend another £1500 on steelwork that was actually required for the scheme then you have a legitimate claim for the £1000-worth of steel (which wouldn't have been ordered if the drawing had been correct).
Click to expand...

I don't think there is this divide. I think just about everything abou building that frame was unavoidable cost. The frame was needed for the scheme to work. I guess the only thing that was a waste of time was that we had to lift the floors again. What we avoided is having inhabitable room or spending loads more money. The architect came up with a solution that if we somehow managed to implement it would cost easily over 30k, would mean additional delays and would require planning permission and neighbours consent. That's if we could implement it.
 
oldbutnotdead said:
You'll also need a chat with your builder about the avoidable/unavoidable elements
Click to expand...
I'll and thank you for braking this down. It's much clearer this way. Also, this is maybe where we see we don't really have a case against him.
 
OK. What I was trying to get at is if the job became £7200 more expensive just because that was a half brick wall (rather than because the half brick wall was misdrawn) then your case is weakened by betterment. The main ground for any recovery would shift to 'if we'd known it would cost that much we wouldn't have started'- that argument gets stronger as 7200/<whole scheme cost> increases. (so if 7200 was 30% of scheme cost then its a strong argument, if 7200 was 5% of scheme cost it is a much weaker one).
 
motorbiking said:
1. Architect fees + damages <£10K ?
2. What opportunity did the architect have to correct the mistake?
3. What opportunity did the architect have to address the repair and approve the rework costs?
Click to expand...
1. Yes
2. Yes, he had plenty. We asked him few times for help. He came up with a half cooked idea which was not workable and then he said he didn't know what to do.
3. As the new SE was trying to justify to the BC the structure that the architect designed I included him in the communication. I asked him to approve any communication before we send it out because it was his design. Then I heard he took another job in the neighborhood where the house has a similar structure so I cut him off from any communication. I thought he was incredibly irresponsible to do that. One of the laat emails he saw was with a suggestion made by the BC SE. That solution would have coasted double what we paid, but the architect never commented on that. So to some extent I would say he had an opportunity.
 
Dave 123 said:
Yes he did wrote "without prejudice" in the email where he mentions refunding us his fees. What does it mean I practical terms?
Click to expand...

It means he is not admitting fault or any failure to carry out his professional duty.
 
... because its without prejudice - hence the judge cannot consider it.

That does not mean he or she does not take account of it as an attempt to resolve the dispute without court action. When suing someone I usually offer them an option of a lower amount without prejudice. If they are too dumb to take it I go for the full amount and my lower offer is not considered.

A without prejudice offer can still be submitted as evidence if it also contains other facts. Judges are quite good at ignoring the bits they aren't allowed to take account of.

back on topic - I think the case has some real challenges. Consider what you might be willing to accept and start haggling.
 
oldbutnotdead said:
The main ground for any recovery would shift to 'if we'd known it would cost that much we wouldn't have started'- t
Click to expand...

I think this are the grounds for our case. However, his argument would be, you shouldn't have started it without BC's approval. Although I think this argument doesn't hold up because BC wouldn't realise there was an error until their first site visit. And my understanding is the BC's first site visit is on commencement when the work starts.

There was no betterment, if anything our corridor downstairs became a bit more narrow.
 
Completely agree that his getout 'you started before BC had signed off on the plans' is a fail for him- unless Building Control usually do site visits before work starts on full plans jobs (no idea, all mine recently have been building notices).
The betterment bit is more to do with how much the scheme would have cost if you'd gone with the design you now have from the start- if the entire £7200 was required to engineer round that half brick wall then you'd be on thin ice trying to recover all of it.

Imagine you bought a gig ticket for £90 from Stubhub. You get to the gig, discover your ticket is invalid so you end up having to pay £150 for a valid ticket- which is much more than you wanted to spend, had that been all that was available when you originally booked you wouldn't have bothered.
Stubhub definitely owe you £90. You might get £150 but you would not be entitled to 90 plus 150- you did see the gig.
 
You need to examine the contract. There is a difference between negligence and defective services. His liabilities
may be limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top