Casting Foundation

[Jaksy]

Could someone please advise. A builder was given a job to cast a foundation. He dug 3ft. The architect approved his work at specific steps and told him when to continue etc. He was given the go ahead by architect for the foundation to be cast. The builder cast the foundation. Months later, the builder has received a letter stating that the foundation should not have been cast prior to an inspection. When the foundation was exposed it was found they passed over a sewer, the foundations were re-cast within the line of the drain so as not to impose any load upon drain. Who is liable in a case like this - the Architect or builder? What does 'expose' mean - does it mean the whole of the foundation had to be taken up and then re-cast? Is this a big job? Is it a big cost? Thanks

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Has the foundation already been modified or is it yet to be done?

On the face of it the architect is liable, he should have established that there was or was not any drains within the vicinity and had no authority to instruct the builder to cast the concrete prior to the Building Control inspection. It's an essential inspection, he may be able to wriggle out of the drain issue but not waiting for the BCO inspection is plain daft.

That said the builder, if he was any good should have raised some alarm bells and questioned the existing drainage and should have known it needed an inspection.

There's not enough information in your post to determine how big a job it was/will be.

How/who realised there were existing drains? Building Control?

 

[Jaksy]

The foundation has already been completed, but the builder has received court letters. The claim is that the builder went 3ft rather than 4ft, however to support the claim is this letter that was sent by building control to the property owner which says that the foundation was cast prior to inspection.

This letter does not seem to have anything to do with going 3ft or 4ft. So it seems something fishy is going on. But the builder is caught in the middle of it. The builder at the time had raised questions about the drainage, but the pipes were from a disused toilet and the architect had said to cut it and put a T on it, then put a 90 bend on it and expose it out of the earth. It was the foundation for a conservatory. It was a small job - about 6m. Thanks

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

So ....... the muddy water just got even muddier!

If you want any more advice then you will have to give us a rundown as to what went on and in what order and what the problem is now and what the hell is the court letter? Issue on whose behalf and to whom? etc etc etc. If you have specific queries then ask specific questions.

 

[jeds]

How do architects survive without some understanding of what I'd call pretty basic rules? I'm curious about the comment about court papers being served on the builder. By whom? It sounds like you didn't serve them, so you aren't the client. And it sounds like you're not the builder. So who are you?

 

[Jaksy]

I'm the builder's partner - and don't know much about the building trade. o.k - order of events: client ask builder to do conservatory. He agrees. He digs foundation. Sends pictures to architect as requested & waits for Architect. Architect visits site, approves the foundation, gives permission to cast the work. He casts foundation with concrete, laid engineer bricks. Client stops the job. At first her complaint was builder had used wrong bricks. Architect revisits site, informs client the bricks are correct. Client doesn't want builder to continue although she hasn't stated why. Labourers who worked with builder has said she used him to do the hard work etc. A labourer who left his jacket on the site went back & stated that they've continue where he left off & got someone else to finish off. She hasn't paid him for the job - only money for materials - which he has receipts for. Court letters issued by client to builder claiming that he went 4 ft rather than 3ft. There's also a letter attached from council stating that they visited site. Foundation had been cast prior to inspection. had to be recast so as not to put load on a drain. I'm querying who is liable builder or architect. We are going to seek legal advice - but I was just putting it out there ....

 

[jeds]

I'm querying who is liable builder or architect. We are going to seek legal advice - but I was just putting it out there ....

It's going to depend on contract terms. Some types of contract put responsibility on builder for design and administration, and others don't. From your description I'd say architect is liable as he seems to be the one supervising and issuing instructions. On the other hand, why did your partner cast a foundation over a drain? This is a basic error that I would expect ANY builder to avoid – regardless of an architect instruction. Because of this your partner may have to take some of the responsibility. How much I’m not sure?

Why has your partner not invoiced for all works completed? Regardless of the issues, he should invoice and demand payment as normal.

PS. Is he an experienced builder?

 

[Hangus79]

Since when did an Architect approve foundation depths on site?

Never in all my years have I done that, an engineer or building control officer, then yes, but an Architect, no way.

 

[jeds]

Since when did an Architect approve foundation depths on site?

Never in all my years have I done that, an engineer or building control officer, then yes, but an Architect, no way.

That's not the point. We know there was an error, this is a question of who made the error and is responsible to the client for it. The point is that when an architect supervises works and instructs a builder to do something, that architect takes responsibility for his instruction. It's his problem that he had no business making the decision. Or, as I said in my previous post, in this case there is some culpability both ways.