微密圈

I suppose 拢1.7m is what鈥檚 to be expected if you buy a semi-detached backing onto the Thames in Putney. You can watch the boat race from the bottom of your garden. Well done Mr & Mrs West. The only disaster that occurred was when they decided to engage an architect and builder and, well, build. 

The price for the building work was 拢292,000 - the fee for the architect was not a lot at 8% of the build price. Six weeks after the work was sort-of completed the Wests found extensive damp in the lower ground floor. Waterproofing had only sort-of been done. Then they discovered that the plumbing and electrical works were only sort-of done and needed complete replacement and discovered that the new floor slabs in the ground floor were defective. They then discovered that their builder, by the name of Maurice Armour (Contracts) Ltd, was insolvent. Then they sued their architect Ian Finlay Associates for their losses at sort-of 拢800,000. 

The architect blamed the builder and his subbies, contending that all the problems were him and his subbies defective workmanship. But what happens now that the builder has gone bust? The Wests say that it was their architect鈥檚 job to detect defects as and when the builder did his sort-of work and give the builder a thick ear and have the defects put right. Oh really? Is that what the contract between the architect and his customer says? Certainly it has bumf in that contract called a net-contribution clause. It says, 鈥淥ur liability (says the architect) for loss and damage will be limited to the amount that is reasonable for us to pay in relation to the contractual responsibilities of other consultants, contractors and specialists appointed by you.鈥� 

You commercial business people can鈥檛 behave towards consumers as though they too are intelligent hard-nosed business people

So it is the provision of normal architectural services as set out in the RIBA conditions. The fee included twice-weekly visits to site 鈥渋n connection with administering the building contract鈥�. Oh, what does that mean, please?  And bear in mind that the architect鈥檚 customers are characterised, even anointed, by the divine title 鈥渃onsumers鈥�.

You commercial, business people can鈥檛 behave towards consumers as though they too are intelligent hard-nosed business people. Do you by now already sense that these defects and cock-ups by the builder are going to land in the architect鈥檚 lap?  Well, they did.

The adventure into this building work had an iffy beginning. Four bids came in, two at about 拢560,000, the other two well above. So the architect pointed to a builder called Maurice Armour (Contracts) Ltd as an option. This fellow put in a bid of 拢370,000. Oh dear! The Wests and architect then deleted this and that, hence the 拢292,000 price. The architect told the Wests: 鈥淢y own view is that in the 20-years or so I鈥檝e worked with Armour, he has never been a 鈥渂andit鈥� price-wise and he has, overall, delivered a price substantially cheaper than others and that his price should be accepted.鈥� 

An architect has a duty of care consistent with the ordinary standard expected of their profession

Oh come on - this time this honest builder has dropped a huge boo-boo. It was plain daft to go ahead on this disastrously wrong price.

As to detecting duff work, the duty of the architect, on this project at least was somewhat more than having a look on his twice-weekly visit. An architect has a duty of care consistent with the ordinary standard expected of their profession. Being on alert includes visiting site when an important task is got under way. For example, on this job the architect ought to have a beady eye when the new floor slab was being cast. It鈥檚 called taking care of your customer, and so too the architect鈥檚 own backside.

This court case is a superb set of guidance notes for every architect. Design liability, liability to watch, take care to explain, and to mollycoddle. So let鈥檚 take the initiative. Get every architect, every trainee architect, and every partner to come to the RIBA in Portland Place and go chapter and verse through this case to learn the lessons. Then and only then, will your professional negligence insurance outfit renew your yearly policy. And this is the reason; it鈥檚 because what this architect did or did not do is, in truth ever so ordinary. And if the court, the RIBA, and the teachers of architects think it鈥檚 below par, do something about it.

Tony Bingham is a barrister and arbitrator at 3 Paper 微密圈s, Temple