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.

Oh wow! He is not on the register?!

Sorry I missed that. Then it is a scam for sure.

And you would 100% win

He wasn’t using a RIBA contract but on his letterhead he referred to himself as an Architect?

Do you mean the plan was not fully to scale or the written dimensions were wrong? At the end of the day the design was agreed between the architect and your DH, another architect may know more about what is likely to be accepted by a particular planning authority but that doesn't make it a scam.

@user5783940 yes, that is the issue.

I do not want him to continue doing this thou, these people are only stopped when they are forced to ime

thanks

But presumably whoever recommended him to you didn’t have this experience?

and going to small claims court isn’t going to achieve anything in terms of…. Stopping him?

and the need for evidence for a small claim to be successful is high. I don’t see what evidence there is aside from marginal measurement inaccuracies?

Architect 1 was dealing with a naive, vulnerable panicking person. Your DH

Architect 2 was dealing with you.

I agree with @Dontmentionitlove that the bar for successful evidence in terms of making a monetary claim is high and that the inaccuracies and planning snafus won't add up to anything meaningful.

If you really want to stop him and do have it in writing that he's representing himself as an architect, I would contact the ARB and double check that he isn't registered - I wouldn't necessarily count on their online listings being up to date. Tell them that you feel he's misrepresenting his credentials and ask what they advise.

Does he have a website? I've just looked at our architects' site and this is what it says for both of them.

is an RIBA Chartered Architect and holds an MA and Diploma in Architecture from xx.
is an RIBA Chartered Architect and holds an MA and Diploma in Architecture from xx.

A lot of people are jumping to conclusions here.

If he’s using the title of architect without being one that is illegal and I’m glad OP has reported him, though I note very few people are ever prosecuted under this. They usually get a slap on the wrist and get asked to change how they represent themselves and told to make it clearer to clients that they are not a qualified architect.

But loads of people operate as architectural designer, architectural technician and draftsman without being an Architect. It’s quite common especially for extension type work and that isn’t illegal. It’s annoying for qualified architects but lots of those people are good at what they do.

Using the wrong title doesn’t mean it was all a scam and that OP will win a claim against him for the work he did.

An Architect not using a RIBA contract isn’t that much of a red flag or means it’s a scam either. Lots of practices and sole traders use their own bespoke contracts or letters of appointments and that is a legitimate way to operate. A RIBA contract roughly costs £50 each go, that is paid to riba per project lots of people don’t want that overhead.

This

@Bloodysquirellls Definitely not a scam. Yes, architectural technicians and others can draw up plans but they are not Architects. There’s a lot of misunderstanding on the thread. His notepaper is not presumably headed with his RIBA CArch qualification,

100% I am jumping to conclusion based on what OP is saying.

Shes saying they were an architect so if that’s incorrect then I agree.

I am assuming you would win that claim. I have no experience but it’s clearly illegal and misrepresenting.

Re. RIBA - as far as I am aware you don’t actually have to maintain RIBA membership to be an actual Architect and you can just register on the Arb board.

But to be a Chartered Architect you do have to have passed part 3 which is RIBA - so I don’t know that actually works.

Can you be an Architect but not a Chartered Architect?

Anyone calling themself an architect needs to be registered with the ARB - this means they are fully qualified, carry out ongoing training and have professional indemnity insurance. If they describe themself as a Chartered Architect that means that, in addition, they pay a subscription to the RIBA and follow RIBA rules.

RIBA is a membership body. If you pay for membership and meet their requirements you can call yourself a chartered architect.

To be a registered architect (registered with the ARB) you have to meet their requirements in terms of study/experience. I believe the terminology has changed recently, but in ‘old money’ that included Part 3. Being ARB registered means you are an architect. To the best of my knowledge, being a chartered architect is a ‘gloss’ and many smaller practices/individuals don’t bother because the extra cost/hassle isn”t worth it.

I have written evidence of him stating he is an architect, I have submitted it all to ARB.

I am going to have a think about what to do, I really appreciate @PinkWaffleMakerhelpful comments, thanks so much for the info

I am obviously aware DH made a mistake here, at a time when he was very frightened. If I wanted a thread to discuss his many shortcomings I would have started a very different thread.

I am also aware that there is onus on people to do due diligence and check, which was not done correctly and we are £4k out of pocket at a time when my income is compromised by a life limiting illness. It is reasonable to explore what level of responsibility the ‘Architect’ has for being honest.

I’m going to wait to hear back from the ARB and then make a decision. Thanks again

Wow it sounds a bit mucky.

I do think the minimum bar for using the term ‘Architect’ is the ARB registration though. So that part is clear cut.

You need to dig up your correspondence OP

100% this.

If your first architect was registered you could raise a complaint with ARB. But you will need to prove of what was agreed originally (as opposed to what was delivered).

Firstly you need to establish what this man's qualifications are. If he is calling himself an architect and he is not on the ARB register then that is illegal.

Secondly, did your husband give written approval of the plans before the planning application was submitted ?
If he did, there won't be that much you can do as architects can't guarantee approval (although they should be able to advise that the project is unlikely to go through).
Did the architect give a written price estimation for the massive extension ? Did your husband give him an initial budget ?
As for the drawings being 10cm is this for the exisitng or the project ? Planning drawings are not detailed plans for construction.

Lastly, yes the architect will have insurance (or he should) but his insurance will have lawyers who will fight very hard to prevent a payout. It's not like being burgled and then getting a pay out.

The RIBA might also be able to help and advise if he is a member :

www.riba.org/about-us/governance/professional-standards/how-to-make-a-complaint/

To be called an Architect you must register with the ARB. This requires Part 1,2 and 3 exams PLUS 2 years practical experience. Architects then join RIBA (the professional body) as a Chartered Architect. So it’s pretty straightforward. Either they have this training and experience, or they don’t.

It’s very difficult to sue based on misrepresentation because the work was done. If it was too big, then the op and dh did need to look at the plans before they were submitted. This is a normal procedure: client and “architect” or architectural technician work together. A very simple extension doesn’t need an architect but misrepresentation really hinges on his headed notepaper and invoices. If it says “architectural services” then he’s not posing as an architect. Someone calling him an architect and recommending him, is not him using the term architect incorrectly.

Engineering has exactly the same issues. Graduate engineers cannot be bothered to get Chartered because it requires a high educational standard (masters) and years of practical experience but do you want someone without this rigorous training designing the steel structure for a skyscraper? Probably not. Always check people are who they say they are.

Shit at their job perhaps? Conman? possibly.

The chance of a small court ruling in your favour are slim to none. Your only chance is if the architect decides to settle before court but I somewhat doubt it.

Some neighbours submitted a PP application that was refused

One obvious point was that the wall went to the property boundary which the neighbours objected to BUT they would have been able to refuse a Party Wall Act agreement to allow it to be built anyway.

So why didnt the Architect clarify this before starting