Am I being too sensitive or should I be concerned.

[TerryE]

8 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

I would think that most Architects could not quote the second law of thermodynamics, let alone the first one.

 

Quoting is one thing.  Understanding is another

 

@Sensus, Martin, I wasn't talking about other's generalisations, just yours w.r.t. to me and Jeremy.  But will you ever speak to me again if I admit that (to my knowledge) I've never read a book or learned paper written by an architect -- other than an interesting short paper  by Caliwag on eBuild?   I accept the value of an architect where you need one, but I don't think that a professional architect is always appropriate or cost effective in some self-build designs, much in the same way that a hammer is an essential tool for the toolbox, but it makes a bloody useless screwdriver.

[Nickfromwales]

On 28/12/2016 at 16:11, SteamyTea said:

No, you also learn how to defend your mistakes, while charging the customer for the privilege. 

Nick. 

 

Can we stick to factual instances please, rather than simply stating such things randomly. 

A plumber could easily be accused of the same, in fact just about any profession. . 

Thank you. 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Nickfromwales

[Barney12]

I'll throw my 2p's worth in..........

 

What always fascinates me about these issues is that Architects (along with a good number of other professional services) have one real problem; PERCEPTION.

 

The simple fact is that there are plenty of people who are prepared to write about bad experiences with Architects. Of course what we dont know is how many are delighted because of course it is our nature not to shout about the good things. 

 

So who's fault is it? Well I find it interesting to look at the professional body, in this case RIBA. Would the "common man' consider them; friendly, welcoming, helpful? Is their website packed with great advise and examples of building projects for "the average person"? In my view: NO. In fact if you go to the website the first item in the menu is "awards". Oh and gosh isn't their a lot of them! They should rename the section "Willy Waiving". 

 

Of course promotion of the skill of your members is good but have they got the balance right? Could they do ALOT more to promote understanding (including the issues you will face and how its a complex science) of their field to those outside the hallowed esteem of the "club"? YES.

 

I'll end were I begun; this issue is not unique to Architects! There are many professional services that suffer from the same "willy waiving" "elitist" attitude and so often that is driven from their professional body. 

 

Oh and my RIBA Architect thus far has been excellent.

 

............I'll get my coat!  

 

 

[jack]

On 12/28/2016 at 00:23, TerryE said:

For example I think that Jeremy, I and at least a couple others on this forum have the professional and academic backgrounds to hold our own in front of a whiteboard with any architect that you could suggest on this particular topic. 

 

Agreed, but to be fair, you guys are a small minority within a small community that has self-selected itself on the basis of an interest in self-build that goes far beyond that of the ordinary person having a house built or renovated.  I know a handful of people who've done large refurbs (double house size sort of thing) and built from scratch, and every one of them looked at me blankly when I asked what sort of insulation they are using (I didn't even bother asking about U values or airtightness). 

 

I was unhappy with our first architect.  Not incompetent, but we didn't like what she was designing us, and the way she positioned the house on our block would never in a million years have passed planning.

 

I'm hugely positive about the architect we replaced her with.  He had great ideas, was technically excellent (with the possible exception of some of his weathering details) and really helped us think about how to approach house design.  We would never have come up with the layout he suggested, but it works really well in practice.  There are, of course, things I'd change in hindsight, but they aren't his fault.  Design is an organic process, with lots of compromises, some of which aren't apparent until you're living in the space.

 

Friends of ours had a highly awarded architect design them a house.  It's a hugely contemporary glass thing to sit on a country plot.  They've just had it costed, and the cheapest he's been able to find so far is over twice the budget he gave the architect.  To be fair, I do think they (the friends) were ridiculously optimistic on price and indeed may have contributed to the higher costs based on their insistence on luxury spec throughout.  It's also a difficult house to build, and I know lots of builders simply refused to quote.

 

Other friends of ours used an architect to convert their bungalow into a two story house and are wildly happy with what he did.

 

So what does this tell you about architects?  Very little, I suspect.  Like any professional qualification, it's just confirmation that at some stage you ticked all the boxes to get it.  How good a practitioner you subsequently become depends on your talents, experience, motivation and a bit of luck.  You should expect competence, and for most people that's sufficient (see first paragraph above!)

 

On 12/27/2016 at 23:34, Sensus said:

Whereas if he makes changes or 'corrections' outside of the Architect's design, he's standing on the thinnest and slushiest ice possible.

 

If I found an error, I'd point it out to the architect and have them fix it.  As you say, the "correction" isn't my responsibility. 

[PeterW]

I think the comment about perception here is correct - and about what the brief contains vs what is delivered. 

 

I've just had all the NMAs approved on our plans which remove some glaring architect induced issues. Bear in mind this is a conversion / extension so you are retaining the existing structure :

 

- a window in the as built existing structure that's on the wrong elevation. 

- a door and window reversed in the as built 

- a window inserted into a stairwell  that would be at stringer height.

 

All of these are in plans drawn by an architect, yet none were picked up by the previous owners who paid a large sum for his work. This is the same architect who wanted £500 plus vat to provide me with a copy of said plans (paper copies...) despite us buying the plot with full pp from the previous owners. 

 

Flip this one over and I've done work with a large scale practice who are superb and would work with again in a heartbeat. 

 

Both are RIBA architects, yet perception would put them at opposite ends of the spectrum. 

 

 

 

[MikeSharp01]

Hmmmm... This thread has warmed up a bit hasn't it and for me that's great. Believe me I have great respect for our architects who have done a great job, in our opinion, in bringing the design through planning against difficult planning and client, IE me, situations. They have, had times, had the 'I know best' attitude and have not really been able to justify it but  this has been something I have done to them as well. I can confirm, having had dealings with almost all the professional bodies in engineering at least in my time that a lot of the apparent 'arrogance' for want of a better, less inflammatory, word is driven from the professional bodies. This is because these bodies are designed to be exclusive and they make membership appear such an achievement that the members group think is that they are set apart and as such should drive ideas in their discipline. It is also instructive to learn that, although they are all supposed to comply with the same standards for membership, one of the civil engineering bodies thinks of itself as the hardest to get into and advertises this, somewhat clandestinely through tutors, to students.

 

Unfortunately they all need to wake up and smell the flowers, or coffee, and realise that their roles are now so interconnected in real time, BIM for instance is out there big time in construction, that they will no longer have the luxury of working something out independently and then presenting it as the starting point. In the world going forward omincompetence will be required or at the very least the ability to navigate the needs (wants) of other disciplines in real time. If this does not happen the roles will be replaced by IT systems and just one person - might be an architect or perhaps an envirotect (must protect that name while I think of it), will orchestrate design and perhaps even construction. (You can imagine an uber app for first fixers can't you - sounds like a 1920s dock labour scheme to me - what goes around comes around)  At every turn the 'system' will re-cost and resequence the design so the orchestrator can see how much it will cost and the impact on schedule.

 

We are trying to use a sort of BIM on our build but the architect only has a good understanding of level 2 BIM - 3D CAD, and definitely does not manage the 4D - Sequence, and for us 5D - cost, at all well although they do let me work out how much an idea costs and kick it into touch from there, I have to do the how to build it - 4D stuff as well. I am in the happy position of being able to do this in almost real time - your doing nothing else Dad and I have a reasonable grasp of how it might be constructed and how to cost it.

 

@Sensus has a real quandary on their hands splitting the web site. Self builders here are self selecting at best and I suspect many guests don't join because they don't like the feel of the site and the apparent depth in which things are discussed here. Having enough 'ways in' has always been a marketing mantra I felt resonated with me. The art of getting people into something is to present them will accessible routes and supporting their journey to the core from the entry point. Allowing them to peel back the onion as they go through. Most of the bigger component / materials supplier firms now have web sites that accept the existence of self builders (widest definition), alongside hardened professionals from construction and design areas, that allow you to switch between them and take a slightly different path to the details you want but the details remain the same.

 

FWIW I think two doors in will be a boon, your can always A-B test it, because people will see that you have thought about their needs and take the route that they feel best suits them. Also the semantic crawlers rummaging in the brain of your site will see more relevant content and rank you higher. I think they call that win - win.

[ProDave]

The overwhelming message I get from this thread, is there are some very good architects, and some very bad architects, and no doubt the vast majority lie somewhere in between.

 

The "problem" I found is there are not many up here, and the ones I contacted all fell very near the lower end of that spectrum, and my "criticism" of them all was they estimated the build cost at nearly twice what it eventually cost to build, and based their fees on a fixed percentage of that build cost estimate. None were open to negotiation on their fees or discussion about what I wanted them to do and what I did NOT want them to do as a way of reducing the fees.

 

As an electrician, most of my work now comes from recommendations. I don't advertise anywhere really. But I could not find anyone willing to recommend me an architect. What does that say.  Mind you, the same is true of builders. nearly 20 years ago when we were down south I wanted to build an extension. I spoke to a lot of people who had similar work done, and NONE said they would recommend their builder. Eventually I found one and I WOULD (and did) recommend him to others. and the builder we have just used to build the shell of our new house I definitely would recommend again.  As the the architectural technician we used to detail the present house, the individual was brilliant, the company he worked for had some "issues". I would recommend him, if I knew who he was working for now as he has left that practice.
 

[PeterW]

Short answers are yes, full pp included and the plans were provided by vendors / solicitors but were only A4 copies. 

 

I would have paid up to £100 given it's probably no more than 30 mins work to get file copies pulled and new A2 copies created.  He also seemed disinterested in doing any further work on it - the vendor was a surveyor so I got the feeling the original plans etc were done as favours. 

 

As it stands I just took the online copy and worked through it with a scale rule and then did a survey of the existing building - what now has permission vs the original share a single partial elevation in common, nothing remains of the floor plans or any other elevation so any copyright claim would be amusing ...

 

 

[ProDave]

In the above example. The original owner paid to have a house designed for THAT PLOT.  The fact that the plot has changed hands and the new owner does not have a right to build that house on that plot unless he pays a fee to the architect to buy the copyright, is verging on fraud.

 

Yes if he wanted to take that design and replicate it elsewhere then I see a justified case of having to buy the copyright, but not for building the ONE house on the plot that the architect designed it for.

 

So as Peter says, a reasonable admin charge to cover the time actually taken to provide the drawings would be reasonable.
 

[PeterW]

Whilst I agree the sentiment, a court would look at that in light of the term "reasonable" - and what you're suggesting is not reasonable ..!

 

The fee I was quoted £500 for was to "obtain copies of plans from archive in A1 paper format", not for the copyright. In selling me the plot "with the benefit of full planning permission" and "plans provided within the seller pack" then the only recourse that the architect would have would be on the vendor as taking your example the vendor was selling something they didn't have the rights to sell. That no longer becomes my issue ..!

 

 

[Ferdinand]

@Sensus:

 

Quote

 

But I would observe that there is a risk, once again, of judgements being formed on the basis of a very narrow perspective. Just as I've found the members of this forum very dismissive of the knowledge and expertise of major housebuilders, just because it doesn't fit their view of how they (self-builders) like to perceive themselves, so it is with their perception of architects.

 

 

 

 

I have some sympathy with that, and I think the same applies to the term "self-builder". There is no typical architect or self-builder, and the ground each may need to cover is so great that we cannot expect that. It is not reasonable to expect any architect from the phone book or the local large practice to understand say the intricacies, how to use, and availability of types of oak frame or self-cleaning curtain wall glazing or CLT vs Timber Frame for a 4 storey house on a site on Gigalum Island; we can reasonably expect them to have the knowledge of how to find it out, and capability to make a sound judgement once they have found out, and experience/professionalism to refer us somewhere else if appropriate.

 

Equally self-builders might be the person building a timber frame house starting, as Harvey Jones quipped of Morgan, with the standing tree and who learns how to shear the local sheep they have russled to make insulation for 4p per tonne. Or they could be a well-off person who just wants a Gin Palace with a swimming pool, who may be interested in the internal texture of his Quoins or just wants to move in asap. Or they could be a turbo-DIYer expanding their scope. There is a spectrum.

 

The key skills on both sides are probably communciation and listening. Which is what we are about on this thread.
 

Quote

 

I think you need to appreciate that in the grand scheme of things, self-builders have little or no importance to the RIBA. They form an absolutely trivial percentage of the business of architectural practices, overall, so it would make no sense to tailor their website to the needs of a tiny minority whose needs are off at the extreme end of the spectrum.

 

 

 

 

In quantity, perhaps, but as far as I can see ALL of the longlisted houses in the RIBA House of the Year could be described as self-builders - people building or modifying their own houses. Perhaps one issue is misunderstanding of roles.

 

And negotiating expectations and establishing particular roles and recognising what those are is perhaps the thing easiest to miss, especially as self-builders doing one or two projects may not recognise the vast zoology of architects out there - it is no use having a Hummingbird architect if you actually need a Termite Queen.

 

Personally I think of the RIBA as being rather pompous, or (more colloquially) a little "up themselves" - the quintessential establishment. That is a view I share with several architects known to me. I think they would be more approachable after a few years were their headquarters to move to say Burnley, Haverford West or Cumbernauld. i am not sure if that is much different from eg the main membership organisation for Actuaries, but we see the products of architects every day when we leave our beds or our front doors whilst in our relationship with actuaries either us or them are dead by the time we discover it was a dud.

 

That House of the Year is limited to "architect designed" is a good illustration of that somewhat pompous tendency imo. There's something Barchester Chronicles about it.
 

Quote

 

Even myself, as much as I enjoy working with self-build clients in terms of personal satisfaction (and run a practice that specialises in housing, so number quite a few among my cilents), have to acknowledge that they're a downright liability as clients: they absorb way too much of your time, and expect you to hold their hands and extricate them from their blunders continuously and at no extra cost.

 

 

 

I have views about the architect I would employ:

 

1 - I value people who put their money where their mouth is, so I would hope for someone who built or modified their own house and is able to communicate their rationale to me or talk about projects in that way.

2 - I expect my views in the areas I know about to be given equal weight.

3 - For the main part I prioritise practicality / pleasantness to live in, long term maintanability, simplicity and cost-effectiveness over artistic expression. But that does not rule out attractiveness, just white elephants.

4 - I would expect to see experience similar or adjacent to the project(s). Were I wanting a very effective 100sqm rental bungalow on a 250qm site I would not recruit Zaha Hadid or Calatrava; I would look for the person who designed the one built round the corner three years ago that the inhabitent likes living in..

5 - I would expect to kiss several frogs to find my prince. But then one of my frogs could be somebody else's prince, as we are all varied frogs ourselves.

6 - As Client I get the final say having listened carefully, and specifically given my architect the right to challenge vigorously.

 

I would hope to be billed monthly on the basis of time spent, to have the full electronic model, and a right for that design to be used on that site without further supply of spondulicks.

 

But I have been around architects for a long time and worked in the commercial side of construction research for some time so can to an extent talk constructionese nearly as well as I talk gibberish.

 

 

Quote

But it's a quandary we're facing ourselves, at present: we're currently re-writing our website, and I'm in two minds about whether to have separate sections for domestic and commercial clients. If we do, then the tone and content will need to be very different, and that risks one side or the other thinking that we treat them differently (which we do - their requirements are very different) and less favorably (which we desperately try not to, though their definition of what they consider to be a 'good service' is very different, too).

 

It is a similar dilemma to hiring an architect :-).

 

A web designer has combine practicality and a limited selection of technology from umpteen options have to be combined with satisfying a client who does not understand all the areas (eg latest practice in accessibility design, video technology, online copyright law, traffic analysis etc) while being a designer with a desire for artistic expression (and probably higher fees than architects :-o ).

 

I would be fascinated to hear how this goes.

Ferdinand

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, Sensus said:

 

I assure you it is - it's absolutely standard procedure for design contracts!

 

Further information here, if you wish to read up on it.

 

 

Exceptions to copyright law are also important, as compared to "use" of copyright material which is an infringement.

 

We all have the right to reproduce copyright material for private study or research, or for criticism or review (write an article on your blog :-).

 

"Works of artistic craftmanship" on permanent public display are also exceptions to copyright protection, so if you photograph a mosaic in the pavement you are probably OK making postcards of it for sale.

 

Good source is the Design and Artists Copyright Society factsheets:

 

https://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base

eg

https://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/exceptions-and-limitations

 

However, architectural arguments will be about the copyright that exists in the *design of the building* as well as the one that may exist in the buidling itself. I would not like to argue this with a copyright lawyer, but would be happy defending myself against a hectoring critic using it as they would need to spend money to take it further.

  

There was a time a few years ago when Local Authorities went flappy about letting people have copies of plans on copyright grounds (had the RIBA circulated a missive?), and started using lots of popup boxes on website, but that seems to have gone away more recently. IIRC I saw a few FOIs refused on those grounds.

 

Obviously designers and lawyers sending letters will pretend that all kinds of acceptable activities are infringements, but that is what lawyers are for and why we have courts to draw the lines. Equally I would as a user probably go a little over the line the other way.

 

F

Edited December 29, 2016 by Ferdinand

[ProDave]

Sensus. ALL you are doing is exposing how bad architects and their contracts are.

 

If someone PAYS the architect to design ONE house for ONE plot and provide all the plans, then I am pretty sure that 99.9% of people would think it perfectly reasonable if the plot changes ownership, to expect owner B to be able to build the SAME house on the SAME plot without anything more than a small administrative fee. Any attempt to "sell" the copyright to the new owner while possibly perfectly legal (if that's the ay the original contract was worded) it would be to most people very very sharp practice and extracting money for old rope.

 

I am not talking about building multiple houses to the same design, or building the same house elsewhere, just the one house on the one plot as the architec designed it.

 

Perhaps the ONE lesson from this, is when you appoint an architect, make SURE points like that are worded to YOUR satisfaction in the contract that you sign.

 

And can I throw into the mix what happens when the OWNER designs his house and gives that design to the architect to detail (was the case with my present new build) There can be no argument that I own the copyright to the "design" the architect only owns the copyright to the details that he produces.

 

[PeterW]

Ok ... has this ever been challenged in court and is there case law references ..??

 

I cannot see how an architect could challenge this despite "owning" copyright as what you are referring to now would not be challenged under the copyright acts / laws but the Unfair Contract Terms act as you can imagine it would be a farce ..!

 

An architect challenging the fact that they designed something for client A to gain planning permission and then client A sold it to client B who then built said design to that permission. 

 

The architect would have have to prove material loss by the action of client A not building it, and client B enacting the design.... 

[PeterW]

But the license is for a single item..! Designed for a single site...

 

I'd need to check but I don't think this has ever come to court as case law as it is borderline indefensible - as far as the court would be concerned, the license fee for that design had been paid, in enacting the "design" then the license is used. I agree if someone went on to build 10 more then copyright breach has occurred, but not for a single bespoke design for a single plot. 

 

I will also dig out a copy of the riba standard contract for a look - let's just say most contracts fall apart when their terms are properly reviewed, hence my comment about unfair contract terms act. 

 

 

[PeterW]

M v M 1941 refers to the copyright in a design that was then copied by another to extend the Heals store in London - it is a clear statement on the copyright of architecture, not on a design or use license which is what I believe we are discussing. 

 

Looking at other case law, the right of license is discussed and interestingly RIBA now include that (from what I have read)into their standard terms of engagement. Also appears Stovin-Bradford vs Volpoint 1971 refers to the implied license - I'm not reading that now but I'd hazard a guess it's also about what is reasonable....

 

 

[Ferdinand]

@PeterW

 

@Sensus beat me to it. His link here references Meikle vs Maufe of 1941. 

 

I think the relevant concept is that the Copyright in a "work of artistic craftmanship" includes the control of how it is used, and you buy a license to use a design rather than a lock stock and barrel transfer of ownership. Even if you engage an architect, that copyright remains with the Artist ie the Architect, unless there is explicit provision for transferring those rights of control (and also the right to be identified as the artist etc) in the contract.

 

A comparison with photographs may help. If I buy a photo from say Alamy, under traditional terms, I buy a license to use the photo in a particular way eg in a brochure, A5 on an inside page, with a circulation of 10,000. If I want a print for my foyer I have to get another license. If I even purchase the negative from the photographer I still don't get the right to publish the picture unless I have also bought the relevant image rights with the negative. This lasts until the architect has been dead for 70 years iirc.

 

Aside: This is why museums ban high qualiy pics of their Old Masters physically ("no tripods") because there would then be no way of limiting people who started selling posters, since Leonardo is dead for >70 years.

 

So the designer's copyright includes control over how that design is used, and any use beyond that envisaged in the initial contract counts as a further use which needs a further agreement. If the designer is employed by a practice rather than contracted there will be some words in the contract of employment, which will probably give @Sensus and his Partners or the Company itself control of certain of the rights his minions receive automatically under Copyright Law when they design a house.

 

Meikle vs Maufe illustrates the outworking of that concept in the Courts:

 

Quote

" the first Copyright Act was passed in 1709. In 1911 protection under the Act was extended to cover architectural works, and in the 1941 case of Meikle v Maufe, an architect successfully sued their client for employing another architect to extend the Heals’ shop on Tottenham Court Road by replicating their design. "

 

There is a wonderfully clear (!) legal commentary on the SWARB site (assume this is where @Sensus got the quote from), which talks about License to Use rather than Ownership:

http://swarb.co.uk/meikle-v-maufe-1941/

 

Quote

References: [1941] 3 All ER 144 
Coram: Uthwatt J 
An implied licence is limited to what is in the joint contemplation of the parties at the date of the contract, and does not extend to enable the Client to take advantage of a new unexpected profitable opportunity.
Uthwatt J said: ‘It was contended on behalf of the defendants that there could not be a separate copyright in a building as distinct from a copyright in the plans on which the building was based, and that, if there were a separate copyright in the building, the copyright was in the builder. In the present case, neither of these contentions is material, except in so far as the correctness of either of them may affect the quantum of damages. Upon the first contention, it is argued that the originality lies in the plan, and that, therefore, there can be none in the building which reproduces the plans. Upon the second contention, it is said that , wherever originality may lie, the author, for copyright purposes, is the builder who has built the building, and not the architect responsible for the plans. In my opinion, neither contention is well-founded. As regards these contentions, an architectural plan finds its meaning and purpose in the use to which it is put. The point of the architect’s activities is not the making of plans as such, but the embodiment in the building of artistic and other ideas which he has in mind and which are contained in his plan. The plan is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. To deny originality to the artistic design embodied in a building by attributing originality only to the plans which led to the building would be to give reality to the shadow and refuse it to the substance.’ 

 

I would need also to dig for stuff about where "reasonability" limits these rights etc.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Ferdinand

[PeterW]

Some useful links in here :

 

http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/4621/1/Mann-Denoncourt.pdf

[Ferdinand]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

 

Perhaps the ONE lesson from this, is when you appoint an architect, make SURE points like that are worded to YOUR satisfaction in the contract that you sign.

 

 

Yes.

 

And I would expect the RIBA Standard Agreement to be worded to give the architect the ability to have control which is why the small print is critical.

 

(Though in a consumer situation a clause may not be enforcible if not sufficiently clearly explained to the non-expert party, as Credit Card companies and Landlords keep discovering).

 

But I can't post it here a) because it costs money to access and b) because were I to pony up my £47.50 I assume I only get a License to Use rather than License to Republish on Buildhub, though I could probably post the relevant clause under the Criticism and Review exception to Copyright I mentioned above.

 

@Sensus
 

Quote

 

I'm a bit bemused, to be honest. I'm struggling to believe we're even debating this - anyone with a background in property development will recognise it as absolutely basic, schoolboy stuff: you always make sure that any design information is explicitly assigned to you where necessary to implement a Planning Permission, when you buy a site!

 

 

 

 

I think that brings us back to most self-builders not being property developers or serial builders, who would already know a lot of the background stuff having walked into legal and planning lamp-posts on previous occasions.

 

(Which is partly why this forum is required ).

 

Anyhoo, around here Riber is a former zoo near Matlock.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Ferdinand

[ProDave]

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

Prodave, all I am doing is telling you the way that the law relating to design contracts works, and always has done.

 

As I've said, default standard practice is that copyright remains with the designer and is not transferable without their novation, unless the client contractually agrees otherwise at the outset. Not just with Architects - all consultants are the same, from Structural Engineers to Ecologists and Archaeologists; you can't use their work unless it has been assigned to you.

 

That's the way it's done. That's the way it has always been done. Don't blame me if you were ignorant of the fact!

 

Like I say, all you are doing is highlighting how devious some architects are in wording their contracts.  Yes I agree if that is what the contract says then that is how the law will interpret it.

 

What I am saying, is an architect COULD word their contract fairly, i.e they are designing a house to be built on a particular plot and if the plot changes ownership then the new owner can build the house that was the subject of the design on THAT plot for little or no extra fees.

 

Yes they could word it (and it seems they often do) that only the original owner has the right to build the house on that plot. That is just writing in a clause to extort money in return for no actual work, which to my mind is verging on fraud.  The ONLY way that would be fair, is upon payment from the NEW owner, they them made a partial refund to the OLD owner, In effect the old owner selling back to the architect the licence to build the house and the new owner purchasing that licence.

 

Keep on arguing all you like, but this just demonstrates how devious some architects are. and then you wonder why they have a bad reputation?

[PeterW]

8 minutes ago, Sensus said:

Did you bother to read the judgement I quoted from the case?

 

It is clearly and explicitly related to licence!

 

Yes - did you bother to read my response or the case I quoted ..?

 

I think you hit the nail on the head so to speak - anyone with a background in property development should know this stuff - which by definition most self builders are not in this camp ..!

 

But isn't this where as professionals an architect should guide their client with an open dialogue, not choose to shaft them royally by using section 7.3-2(para B):clause 9-2 of their 18 page contract which clearly states unless its all explicit etc etc, the plans they have just purchased are worth slightly less than the paper they are printed on ..?? 

 

And you're challenging us as to why some architects have a bad reputation ..??!

[jack]

Come on gents, it's the festive season. Let's all talk nice. 

[jamiehamy]

4 minutes ago, jack said:

Come on gents, it's the festive season. Let's all talk nice. 

I've forgotten what we're actually discussing! 

[Construction Channel]

4 minutes ago, jack said:

Come on gents, it's the festive season. Let's all talk nice. 

 I thought they were doing quite well so far, 

 

[Construction Channel]

4 minutes ago, jamiehamy said:

I've forgotten what we're actually discussing! 

AFAIC theoretical nonsense, but its keeping them all entertained on a cold winters afternoon so was quite happy for them to carry on