Architect won’t sign Completion Notice Form

[Oceanjules]

Hi,

 

I'm wondering if someone could give me an advice. I had just an extension done and in the process of completion. Now, there are four people that need to sign it- client, builder and 2 planners (I believe it’s the architect and the engineer). I have contacted the architect saying that he won’t sign it as he wasn’t part of the building process. He originally wanted to be part of it from the beginning like overseeing it but of course with the price so I decided not to involve him. He said he would only sign it if he does some checking and of course comes with the fee. 
 

what is my stand on this one please? 
 

thanks 

Edited September 18 by Oceanjules

[bmj1]

This is pretty standard. If you haven't retained the Architect through Stages 5 + 6, and he hasn't supervised the build, then you can't expect him to sign a document and put his PII on the line.

[Oceanjules]

Does that mean it won’t get signed off?

[nod]

You only need building control to sign it off 

You don’t need your builder to do anything 

You certainly don’t need your Architect to sign it off 

Speak to building control 

[Oceanjules]

Ok, thank you. 

[ETC]

2 hours ago, bmj1 said:

This is pretty standard. If you haven't retained the Architect through Stages 5 + 6, and he hasn't supervised the build, then you can't expect him to sign a document and put his PII on the line.

Architect’s don’t supervise. They inspect. Builder’s supervise. Just saying.

[ETC]

……and in any case why do you need the works “signed off”.

 

BC will give you a Completion Certificate once completed……is that not sufficient?

[Oceanjules]

It’s just because I thought the BC won’t sign it off if the architect won’t sign it. 

[Temp]

 Only the BCO signed our completion certificate.

[-rick-]

Isn't this to do with the new changes related to building safety where you need the Principle Designer to sign off on the design and the Principal Contractor to sign off that the building has been built to the design?

 

In which case it shouldn't matter that the architect wasn't involved beyond the design stage?

 

As others have said they have recently got sign off without this but it may depend on when construction started? Not sure of the date off hand but vaguely recall late 2024.

Edited September 19 by -rick-

[Redbeard]

Did your planning (note small 'p') include designating duty-holders under the Bldg Regs and Building Safety Act? There should have, AFAIK, been a Principal Designer at the outset and if, at any stage that person withdrew, there should be a trail stating to whom the PD role has been passed. That ('legacy') person is the one to sign off, and the person taking that role has to be able to prove that they have the required experience and competences.

[-rick-]

12 minutes ago, Redbeard said:

Did your planning (note small 'p') include designating duty-holders under the Bldg Regs and Building Safety Act? There should have, AFAIK, been a Principal Designer at the outset and if, at any stage that person withdrew, there should be a trail stating to whom the PD role has been passed. That ('legacy') person is the one to sign off, and the person taking that role has to be able to prove that they have the required experience and competences.

 

I was under the impression that for low risk buildings the Principal Designer role was only about the design phase, not build phase. I quickly googled and this came up which seems to confirm but I may be missing something:

 

https://www.ribaj.com/intelligence/navigating-the-role-of-principal-designer-building-safety-act

 

From that article it suggests that I was wrong to say 2024 above, in which case I'm not sure how I square it with others here saying they didn't need these details on recent projects.

[DevilDamo]

Are you referring to the decelerations that the client, designer and contractor need to sign as part of the Dutyholders requirements?

[Gus Potter]

4 hours ago, -rick- said:

I was under the impression that for low risk buildings the Principal Designer role was only about the design phase, not build phase. I quickly googled and this came up which seems to confirm but I may be missing something:

Some approximate general comment, I don't touch on all the facets only some, but try and write in the context of self build.

 

 

The CDM 2015 regs tried to reduce the amount and severity of accidents on site. I remember in the early days before 2015 CDM folk were saying to designers.. look you can't do your "Concept design" and bury your head in the sand. You must now introduce the concept of safety to your Clients pretty much at stage Zero. It was good practice as if a Client gives you a funny look at this stage it does not bode well for fee generation.  The reason for this was to encourage Clients to set aside an element in their budget for health and safety on site and enough to cover the professional design fees / early engagement with Contractors and so on to enable this. A common figure that was suggested at the time was 3 -5% of the budget. 

 

Now that kind of worked ok to drive down the number of site accidents as the CDM 2015 caught in the net some of the smaller Contractors who were winging it. Architects got used to it and folk became a bit more responsible, not much but it helped.. there is still a way to go but the CDM 2015 did reduce the accident rate on site. 

 

Grenfell tragedy changed things a lot in England BC and in the UK in general. In Scotland we have a slightly different and nuanced set of building regulations, but these were still open to abuse after 2015. In Scotland when you apply for a completion certificate you have to sign it to say that what you have designed and what you have built is compliant with the building regs, you need to sign off on that. But the BC regs were open to abuse by corporate interests not least.

 

OK to stop this becoming tooo lengthy.. the CDM 2015 got you to the place (with a fair wind) where you built something where no one got hurt during the build. But now after Grenfell folk as asking designers.. now that the building is occupied is your design safe! It's a fair, reasonable and moral question. This could be in terms of structural safety, fire and seviceability for example? 

 

What this means to me is that when I design something as a lead designer I carry the can. I'm responsible for ensuring that if for example a sub designer submits a glass design package I am experienced enough to say.. that looks ok. If an Architect or TF manufacturer submits a design the same applies. If I am not experienced enough ( happens from time to time)  in a particular field then I must alert the Client to my lack of experience and make recommendations.

 

In summary the lead "New Principle Designer" is now responsible for ensuring the future performance of the building to a greater extent in terms of design, safety and seviceability than before. They are not responsible for the quality of work on site in terms of "supervision ~= a traditional clerk of works function). @ETC has posted about this. 

 

But on the other hand Designers are responsible now for not designing something that is so difficult to built it introduces a safety risk in the short and in long term, once the building is occupied. Personally I think this is a good thing as you should be held accountable for what you design. 

 

Here is an example of how I'm navigating, in a pratical way, the change in regs for self builders. I have a number on my books all over the UK but one in particular is a great example. Their design is complex with different materials that behave in very different ways and this extends below the ground with the associated geotechcal and ground water excitement. 

 

The Client is the Principle Designer and we have this recognised in writing. I'm in principle the lead SE and have a level of checking control, but also part of my "tacit role" is to support the Client ( self builder) in fulfilling their responsibility, call that hand holding for which I get paid for. The Client can point to the chain of communication and say.. I have made a big effort to fulfill my Principle Designer Duty as a self builder. With my SE hat on I design the bits and coodinate the interfaces, often connections that the work package suppliers don't want to design. Now this role I perform comes at an extra cost to the Client. But what I try and do is mitigate that by saying see if we knock a few heads together you might even make my fee cost nueutral! 

 

In self building and I see this all the time.. work packages are procured but no one designs an coodinates the interfaces, calls out the Architect, Contractors go off and do their own thing, you as Clients start to "fall in love" with your builder and take their advice without question, it's not uncommon to see fore protection getting changed and so on. 

 

As a point of note.. I have had some recent dealings with Protek, the warranty provider and, they are asking some deep questions about this design liability in terms of the new "Principle Designer Role". My own PI insurance is coming up for renewal soon so no doubt there will be another page of questions about what I'm up to! 

 

In summary I don't think this is insumountable if self builders are willing to adapt and start ot think about keeping a professional on board during the build to hold their hand. 

 

And here lies the fundamental issue!

 

Self building is often traditionally about getting prices for work packages; the founds, timber frame, roof, and so on and you sort the bits out in between. In the old days you could still make a tidy profit by doing it this way as a novice sefl builder.

 

My own gut feeling is that I can see how self builders are finding it more and more difficult and costly to navigate Planning, BC and now the Principle Designer stuff.  

 

From my end I think.. ok this "Principle Designer Role" is not scary provided your Client is willing to pay a bit more. In return I think.. now I have more to contribute to the project and I can chip in more and mitigate my "principle Designer fee". Every cloud often has a silver lining for everyone.