WWYD, bad advice from Architect

[faithfultoGeorgeMichael]

What would you do in this situation, I will be as brief as possible.

I was diagnosed with MS in 2023, and it was obviously very upsetting and a difficult time. I was admitted to hospital for a week and then stayed with my mum because I was too tired to get up the stairs etc. and her house was more suitable.
DH and I had discussed getting a small extension before this started. In my absence DH discussed with an architect who was recommended to him and went ahead with drawing plans and submitting to planning. With hindsight this was a scam, and DH was naive in trusting him. I was very unwell and unable to fully understand what was going on.
The plan was rejected by planning, changed slightly and rejected again.
I then made a recovery and stabilised. I contacted a local architect I know who spent a lot of time studying the local plan and history of our house. He spoke to the planning dept and tweaked the plans. They passed, we have the permission and are starting the work next week.
I can see very clearly that the 1st architect was either very bad at his job or a scammer. The work proposed had no fit with the local plan and was far too big. The revised plan was no better.
The new architect has also shown us that the drawings the original architect did are incorrect by up to 10cm in places.
I have written to him and been fobbed off. The original architect's work cost £4000. I am considering taking him to small claims court and wanted advice on whether there was any value in doing this? I feel very upset we were ripped off at such a vulnerable time and do not want him to carry on doing this to other people.
Thanks for any advice you can give.

Sorry - do you mean the measurements of the existing building, or the new extension that was submitted?

Can you do a quick sketch showing which measurements were off?

Did the new architect change the measurements to reflect what the first architect's were supposed to be? Or did he make further adjustments before submitting it?

Do you have any contemporaneous documentation of what your husband asked for and what the first architect promised? Any kind of contract?

Have you been involved in bringing a claim before? I think it's easy to underestimate how time consuming and stressful even a small case can be.

I reflected on this and I think you do have a claim. It sounds like the guy is a cowboy - I don't know that it sounds like a 'scam' per se, he's obviously done the work, but he's overcharged you for a really poor piece of work.

The legislation which is relevant is the consumer rights act 2015: Section 49 says that every contract for services includes a term requiring the professional to perform the service with reasonable care and skill. That obligation applies whether or not your written contract says it.

You could also claim negligence, ie: that the work fell below a reasonable duty of care. That even if not expressly in the contract, it would have been 'reasonable' to think an architect would consult the relevant planning detail for your area in the knowledge that the drawings were being commissioned to gain planning permission. You can also give the example of the mistakes in the drawings to demonstrate the negligence piece.

I think you should be applying for a full refund and the architect will have professional insurance.

You can demonstrate a loss as the costs for re-work, and then another architect starting again. You could also demonstrate a loss of any increase in building costs in the elapsed time, and try and claim for this.

Chat GPT will be your friend on this - I'd suggest sending him a legal sounding letter demanding a full refund and also threatening to report to the architects registration board (their regulator). Then if he says no, you proceed with small claims court. I think they'd find in your favour based on what you say.

And I agree, I hate cowboy traders.

She shouldn't make the case about whether it was approved or not. The case is whether he exercised appropriate care and skill (consumer rights) and was negligent on his duty of care (contract law). The costs and hassle associated with the rejection are just the impact.

Like punching someone would be a crime. Them getting a bruise would be the impact. And someone might be arrested for the punching - not the bruising (if that follows)

Honestly I don’t think you gave a claim. If you are saying that the survey for the original building dimensions were 100mm ie 10cm out you need to look at how small that is on a ruler and while it is not great but it does not constitute a significant error.

I also don’t see how 1 bedroom and bathroom could be 4 times another design by another architect.

I’m sorry that sounds like a difference in scale not building size. There is no way an architect drew a bedroom and bathroom 4 times what another architect produced for the same site. There is only a limited amount of land to work with for a start.

The mistakes in the plan shouldn't be the basis for her case, but evidence to prove that the architect did not exercise appropriate care and skill in performing his work.

So you couldn't make a claim for plans being 10cm out.

But you can make a claim to say 'you didn't exercise the right level of care and skill and because of that I have had all this extra cost and extra hassle' and here's all the evidence ie: plans weren't even right, didn't consult with the right authorities, knew the plans were for planning permission but didn't check the planning rules, advised incorrectly we could get planning (etc etc)

I cant advise on measurements but the applicant is the one responsible for checking the local requirements and ensuring the design complies. They then need to instruct the architect - and anyone else - accordingly.

While a really good architect who does a lot of local work with certain councils may know what policies they have to advise the client on - the responsibility isn’t really theirs. They aren’t planning consultants after all.

Beg to differ.

I think a full blown court of law suing for emotional damages and consequential losses would be a stretch but a small claims court for a refund of her initial 4k? Absolutely. The architect sounds like a total cowboy.

If their contract says they will 'advise' and the advice is just totally wrong, they do need to stand behind that as a reasonable duty under the contract, even if the ultimate obligation lies with the property owner.

It's not about whose fault it was. It's about whether the Architect did a proper and professional job as an Architect.

Great posts by @MyKindHiker.

Also, an architect is highly likely to be solvent - that is, not a lost cause financially. Yes probably trading under a Ltd Co, but not likely to want to liquidate that over £4K.

If an architect suggests in their contract they will give planning advice then she may well have some sort of claim. There are some out there that fancy themselves as planners/various other professions involved in getting planning permission.

But it didn’t read that way - just that the application was rejected and OP believes this is the architects fault.

But my point was it isn’t their job as an architect to give this advice - they take their instruction from their client to produce a design. If the client is asking for something that is blatantly not going to get planning permission a good one may well point this out. But if it’s more ambiguous or a less well known local policy ? That’s possibly outside of their remit as an architect.

Id actually think it more likely for them to have a clause stating they dont give planning advice and that the onus is on the applicant or the planning consultant to check the application. If they have any sense anyway.

Basically OP what did the contract say ?

How was it a scam? Sounds like he did not provide a great service but that's not a scam. Also was his remit to provide advice on planning requirements and support with planning applications, or only come up with a design? If the former you could have a claim for failure to provide services with reasonable care and skill but difficult to know based on what you've said. Even a good architect couldn't guarantee planning. I had a great architect but planning for rejected, they amended the design and it then got accepted. Annoying but local councils do what the hell they want.

Did he invoice the total £4k at the end of the work? You were not involved in any stage of it at all?

@faithfultoGeorgeMichael Was it an actual Architect (registered with ARB)? A lot of people practising in this field may only be ‘architectural designers’ - and anyone (with any level of experience) can set themselves up as an ‘architectural designer’.

OP is the person actually an Architect?

You can search the register here - https://architects-register.org.uk

If they call themselves an Architect but aren’t one that is illegal and should be reported.

If you had a proper contract (if he was an Architect you would have done) follow the dispute resolution pathway set out in the contract. It usually suggests mediation or adjudication in the first instance before litigation. But if I’m honest I don’t think you’ll get very far and it’s unlikely to be worth the head ache. You’re probably better off just leaving a bad review online about the business.

You don’t have a claim about the 100mm. Especially considering the project didn’t progress past planning stage, was never built and for which you incurred no loss. There will probably be a be a note somewhere that all measurements are to be checked on site and do not scale from the drawings. It would be pointless to peruse a claim on the baisis.

Mmm I don’t know. I have worked in an architecture practice before.

I don’t think you can claim and there’s 3 main reasons…

1. a plan is no guarantee of planning permission so you will fail on that point

2. the measurement discrepancy is a big one but it hasn’t caused you any loss. That application failed anyway. The drawings are likely marked ‘for planning’. A loss would only occur if it was built and it was wrong costing you money or planning issues requiring demolition or rebuild. But for it to be built you would have needed the final issue plans ‘for construction’ and you would have had to build it and a builder not pick it up. Drawings are often marked with a disclaimer for builders to be diligent as these things do happen more than you would think.

3. The points on the local plan are confusing me. Local plan is usually location based. Your house hasn’t moved. So you must have local guidance on styling as an extra in your plan. If so it’s not great he hasn’t read that. But really you need to prove that this is the crux of the matter. I am not quite sure how you do that when there were other issues such as scale that you have referred to.

no she did not. he described himself as something else, i can remember what, but the way he explained it he seemed to be one to her. when he wasn’t.

He did the plans on autocad. then said they were his even though the copyright was supposed to be hers so she had to fight to get them as it was in the contract thwy were hers, and sje needed them to give them to her new guy to tweak (a real architect).

it was all such a rip off. it’s like they think youre rich coz you want to make your house bigger. it’s all remortgage, not real money.

I'm with OP on this one, surely the architect should know what the local council will/won't approve and draw up plans in line with this! You are trusting their advice and paying them for their expertise and you / DH are not experts on this which is why you hired them.

I didn’t think that planning drawings were used for construction? So being 10cm out wouldn’t matter at that point. Construction drawings are done later once/if planning has been approved?

You are assuming that the local council will make predictable, logical decisions. They often don’t!

No Architect can guarantee planning permission but I would expect them to advise clients on if they think something will be difficult or easy to get through planning and if there are any specific areas of a design that are explicitly against planning policy.

@PinkWaffleMaker thank you so much

He is not on that list and I have letters from him where he states he is an Architect. I have reported him on the register.

I have a contract and have followed the complaints procedure to its conclusion.

I appreciate your helpful reply

I apologise if you've said and I missed this - was there any kind of contract (a RIBA contract would be standard), letters of agreement? Was the fee structure laid out in advance?

@user5783940 I have a fee structure, a contract (not RIBA) an introductory pack which has a portfolio of previous work.

@MyKindHiker sorry, I somehow missed your post, thank you

I will do some research

Well that sounds bad. Architect is a legally protected title and i believe someone must be registered with the ARB in order to use the title.

I think the fact he wasn't using a RIBA contract is suspicious. I would still urge you to consider how much time and stress bringing a case against him would be, but if you have something where he clearly represented himself as an architect and he isn't, it could be very bad for him