| home | members | join | contact |
What can go wrong
Many problems can arise when a client decides to 'save money' by restricting the services provided by the architect.
Typical cases are as follows:
a) client decides to appoint a tradesperson direct, and
instruct works without drawings, specification or contract.
b) client decides to proceed alone after receiving planning consent
c) architect appointed to warrant stage only - client decides to get his
own tenders using warrant drawings
d) client decides the architect is not required during the construction
phase
Case (a) is most common with small scale repairs or maintenance contracts. The property owner looks up the telephone directory and gets a trades-person to visit the property, He/she then agrees verbally what's wanted and the tradesman provides a 'quote' . Work starts, and problems are found - the extent of repairs required is greater (because no survey was done initially). The contractor then demands payment for work stating that it is almost finished, but in fact much more remains to be done. The contractor then only returns intermittently as another more lucrative job has arisen. Result - delay, no control over costs, misery for the client.
Case (b) is common where the extent of the work appears straight-forward , but is within a listed building. In this case a warrant may be applied for in retrospect, but some work may have been abortive and construction which fails to meet the building regulations may require to be demolished and replaced with works which does so meet these regulations. Result - delay, additional expense, lost time, poor result.
Case (c) arises where again the works appear straight-forward, and where the client has been advised by a builder friend that he can build off the warrant drawings. In this case, risks arise due to the lack of construction detail on the warrant set, lack of full specifications (these not required for warrant) and lack of proper tender document and conditions of contract. Result - poor quality of work (no detail specified), delay (if the client seeks to alter already executed work) additional expense (contractor will have priced for the cheapest possible solution) , lost time (carrying out remedial work) , poor final result, no saving - instead - additional costs.
In case (d) the client will assume that the works are of such simplicity that he/she can manage the works on site without professional advice. If thinks go wrong, the client will have to fight it out with the contractor, and may end up needing to take legal action to bring any dispute to a conclusion. Legal proceedings are usually significantly more expensive than architectural services, and therefore aside from the disruption likely to arise , this course of action should be avoided where possible. Result - delay, additional expense, lost time, poor result.
