A friend of mine has hired someone to design a second story addition for their home.
They've contracted with the designer directly and paid their bill as they went without issue.
It is time for the homeowners to take possession of the finished drawings and start shopping for a contractor but the designer will not finalize and release the drawings without putting a contractors number on the finished plans, stating that there will be legal consequences for the designer if the number isn't attached.
They can't get a contractor without finished plans... and don't know why this catch 22 exists or how to get around it.
Does anyone know what the hell is going on and why this is only an issue with this one specific designer considering plans get released all the time prior to finding a contractor...?
Does not appear to me that you have the full story or understand the situation but anyways, this is something between the client and their "designer"... not some random 3rd party wanker.
What you describe is not something I've ever heard of.
Oct 31, 21 7:54 pm ·
·
Notreallyanarchitect
I'm a general contractor and friend of the owners.
Oct 31, 21 8:17 pm ·
·
Notreallyanarchitect
That's about the extent of the info that's being presented to the owners. It's a baffling demand to everyone which is why i'm asking "professionals" in this wankers field if it makes any sense.
Different states in the US (and presumably different places outside the US, but my knowledge is only US-based) have different limits on what an unlicensed designer can and can't design legally. Most, but perhaps not all, US states would probably allow the project you described, but your state (or wherever you are) could be different.
If the project exceeds the limitations on unlicensed designers where you are, then it was unethical and likely illegal for the designer to do the work under the assumption that a contractor would assume responsibility after the fact, and similarly unethical and almost certainly illegal for any contractor (or architect or engineer) to do so.
If, on the other hand, the project was within the design limitations for an unlicensed person, then it sounds like the designer is under the mistaken impression that having a contractor assume responsibility will relieve him/her of liability.
Either way, this sounds like a designer your friends would be well quit of. Unfortunately, the designer probably (definitely if in the US) has a copyright interest in the design, so getting them to give up the drawings would require a written contract that you could show they were in breach of.
Thats the most helpful insight I've been able to find in almost two weeks. We are in the U.S. in Oregon. I'll look into the legal side of it. Thanks again.
Nov 1, 21 12:59 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Wait, this is a Oregon related question? Ricky, this is you time to shine!
The idea here is to extract your friend with a minimum of fuss. If the designer wants a contractor's name on the plans (in lieu of his own?) have your friends specify yours and get the plans. Document the designer's demands and the activity necessary to secure them. Then your friends can do whatever they want.
I don't see any liability for you unless you do the actual work. If the designer tries to make it look like you prepared the plans the paper trail established above proves that you did not.
The legality of the designer's services notwithstanding, a lawyer should be the last resort. Once the plans are secured a call to the appropriate authorities would be the correct thing to do.
Nov 1, 21 9:13 am ·
·
Notreallyanarchitect
Do you know what the consequences look like if I was approached to perform the work and there was a design issue?
Nov 1, 21 11:10 am ·
·
Notreallyanarchitect
Just curious what potential risks I'm taking on by cosigning the "certified building designers" potentially illegal business practices. Thank you for reaching out.
As far as I can tell your only liability is if you perpetuate a fruad (which documenting your action with your friend disproves) or for normal liability in the course of construction if you build it.
If the practice is illegal, refer to the proper authorities. A contractor doesn't have any more authority to perform illegal practice than a designer. If the designer is just being a dick and you want to help your friend, then sign the plans with clear documentation of why you are doing so then take your name off of them. If none of this sits well with you then your friend should hire a lawyer.
It can be switched at the building jurisdiction when submitted for permit.
Reading your OP, it just sounds like the designer is used to doing things in a particular way & maybe isn't experienced enough to know the alternatives.
The designer has to either refund the fee or allow reasonable copies of the drawings for bidding, permits, etc. Doesn't have to hand over the original files or tracings. This thing about having to have the contractor identified on the drawings is absurd. How would you get to a contractor agreement without bids coming first? Maybe a little trip to small claims court will clarify his/her thinking.
Nov 1, 21 1:03 pm ·
·
x-jla
I’m a landscape design-builder. In 2 scenarios specific to certain cities an approved contractor needs to be identified on the plan for a permit. I understand that’s different than issuance to the owner, but the designer may be confused if there is something similar on that books in that particular community. Both scenarios have to do with working within environmentally protected lands. I’m wondering if this is a historic district or something like that where there is a additional requirement for approved contractors…?
Please know that some jurisdictions in Oregon will not release permits without a GC signed up, or an owner-signed cert for self-build. That may be all this is about.
The only issue is having the contact's name on the permit app, not the plans.
To my knowledge, there are zero situations where the GC needs to be certifying the plans & published on them. Some teams will publish the GC on the set as part of the document release, but it has no legal implication, other than a team has a committed builder.
If structural is handled by the prescriptive code, no engineer is necessary either for exempt structures.
I think this is because the designer isn't able to legally release the drawings with a signature required to build from / obtain a building permit. The unlicensed designer is just trying to cover their ass as no GC can use the drawings to obtain a building permit.
Nov 1, 21 2:01 pm ·
·
proto
I'm giving this scenario some rope as it's told thru the friend's voice as reported by the owner. Game of telephone, if you will...I won't claim to know who's right -- we are not privy to the whole thing, even if only because OP is trying to distill a situation for the purposes of discussion...so many ways for this to have been just poor communication
Hello, I'm not trying to drag this out into a long winded discussion.
Nov 1, 21 10:36 pm ·
·
Notreallyanarchitect
The owners contacted me, explained the situation and asked If they could use my ccb number to get their plans out of hawk. It seemed like a totally unnecessary hang up so I asked their designer why it was an issue and they asked me what was wrong with my license and why It was a big deal which was a bit of a red flag. So I jumped on here to try and see if my friends are dealing normal and professional practices or a corrupt and delusional weirdo...
Weird question, Anyone got a sec?
A friend of mine has hired someone to design a second story addition for their home.
They've contracted with the designer directly and paid their bill as they went without issue.
It is time for the homeowners to take possession of the finished drawings and start shopping for a contractor but the designer will not finalize and release the drawings without putting a contractors number on the finished plans, stating that there will be legal consequences for the designer if the number isn't attached.
They can't get a contractor without finished plans... and don't know why this catch 22 exists or how to get around it.
Does anyone know what the hell is going on and why this is only an issue with this one specific designer considering plans get released all the time prior to finding a contractor...?
Thanks in advance for the time.
Sounds like the designer wants to insert a specific contractor for (use your imagination).
The client can claim self-build, no contractor required.
If that fails the client should have their attorney contact the designer. Local laws and contract agreements are pertinent.
Does not appear to me that you have the full story or understand the situation but anyways, this is something between the client and their "designer"... not some random 3rd party wanker.
What you describe is not something I've ever heard of.
I'm a general contractor and friend of the owners.
That's about the extent of the info that's being presented to the owners. It's a baffling demand to everyone which is why i'm asking "professionals" in this wankers field if it makes any sense.
So put "your number" or whatever on the plans. Your friends can do whatever they want, starting with getting rid of the jackass designer.
atelier nobody's advice below makes attaching myself to this specific wanker very unappealing.
Odd.
Different states in the US (and presumably different places outside the US, but my knowledge is only US-based) have different limits on what an unlicensed designer can and can't design legally. Most, but perhaps not all, US states would probably allow the project you described, but your state (or wherever you are) could be different.
If the project exceeds the limitations on unlicensed designers where you are, then it was unethical and likely illegal for the designer to do the work under the assumption that a contractor would assume responsibility after the fact, and similarly unethical and almost certainly illegal for any contractor (or architect or engineer) to do so.
If, on the other hand, the project was within the design limitations for an unlicensed person, then it sounds like the designer is under the mistaken impression that having a contractor assume responsibility will relieve him/her of liability.
Either way, this sounds like a designer your friends would be well quit of. Unfortunately, the designer probably (definitely if in the US) has a copyright interest in the design, so getting them to give up the drawings would require a written contract that you could show they were in breach of.
Thank you.
Thats the most helpful insight I've been able to find in almost two weeks. We are in the U.S. in Oregon. I'll look into the legal side of it. Thanks again.
Wait, this is a Oregon related question? Ricky, this is you time to shine!
Oregon? Now this all makes sense. By any chance, does this wanker hold themselves out to be a "Certified Building Designer", or reside in Kitsap?
Different person but i won't shop in kitsap for any certified designers. Is "certified building designer" an oxymoron?
No, but the “certified building designer” is a moron.
The idea here is to extract your friend with a minimum of fuss. If the designer wants a contractor's name on the plans (in lieu of his own?) have your friends specify yours and get the plans. Document the designer's demands and the activity necessary to secure them. Then your friends can do whatever they want.
I don't see any liability for you unless you do the actual work. If the designer tries to make it look like you prepared the plans the paper trail established above proves that you did not.
The legality of the designer's services notwithstanding, a lawyer should be the last resort. Once the plans are secured a call to the appropriate authorities would be the correct thing to do.
Do you know what the consequences look like if I was approached to perform the work and there was a design issue?
Just curious what potential risks I'm taking on by cosigning the "certified building designers" potentially illegal business practices. Thank you for reaching out.
As far as I can tell your only liability is if you perpetuate a fruad (which documenting your action with your friend disproves) or for normal liability in the course of construction if you build it.
If the practice is illegal, refer to the proper authorities. A contractor doesn't have any more authority to perform illegal practice than a designer. If the designer is just being a dick and you want to help your friend, then sign the plans with clear documentation of why you are doing so then take your name off of them. If none of this sits well with you then your friend should hire a lawyer.
+1 on just use your CCB
It can be switched at the building jurisdiction when submitted for permit.
Reading your OP, it just sounds like the designer is used to doing things in a particular way & maybe isn't experienced enough to know the alternatives.
Have you seen the docs in question?
Does his name rhyme with Dick Salkins?
It doesn't. Has the man who's name does rhyme with Dick Salkins earned a colorful reputation for himself on here?
Put it this way - If he who shall not be named posted here you'd know. A full screen of text would give him away.
I'm intrigued... I love a good case of dumb wizardry and witchcraft. Can I look them up or is it not safe?
The designer has to either refund the fee or allow reasonable copies of the drawings for bidding, permits, etc. Doesn't have to hand over the original files or tracings. This thing about having to have the contractor identified on the drawings is absurd. How would you get to a contractor agreement without bids coming first? Maybe a little trip to small claims court will clarify his/her thinking.
I’m a landscape design-builder. In 2 scenarios specific to certain cities an approved contractor needs to be identified on the plan for a permit. I understand that’s different than issuance to the owner, but the designer may be confused if there is something similar on that books in that particular community. Both scenarios have to do with working within environmentally protected lands. I’m wondering if this is a historic district or something like that where there is a additional requirement for approved contractors…?
Please know that some jurisdictions in Oregon will not release permits without a GC signed up, or an owner-signed cert for self-build. That may be all this is about.
The only issue is having the contact's name on the permit app, not the plans.
To my knowledge, there are zero situations where the GC needs to be certifying the plans & published on them. Some teams will publish the GC on the set as part of the document release, but it has no legal implication, other than a team has a committed builder.
If structural is handled by the prescriptive code, no engineer is necessary either for exempt structures.
signed, OR architect
That is my limited understanding as well proto. I very well could be incorrect though as I don't do much residential work.
The issue was stated as releasing the drawings to the client, not for a permit application.
I think this is because the designer isn't able to legally release the drawings with a signature required to build from / obtain a building permit. The unlicensed designer is just trying to cover their ass as no GC can use the drawings to obtain a building permit.
I'm giving this scenario some rope as it's told thru the friend's voice as reported by the owner. Game of telephone, if you will...I won't claim to know who's right -- we are not privy to the whole thing, even if only because OP is trying to distill a situation for the purposes of discussion...so many ways for this to have been just poor communication
Hello, I'm not trying to drag this out into a long winded discussion.
The owners contacted me, explained the situation and asked If they could use my ccb number to get their plans out of hawk. It seemed like a totally unnecessary hang up so I asked their designer why it was an issue and they asked me what was wrong with my license and why It was a big deal which was a bit of a red flag. So I jumped on here to try and see if my friends are dealing normal and professional practices or a corrupt and delusional weirdo...
That would have been helpful to know up front ...
Was this design-built project or were the drawings intended to go out to a general bid?
Sent out for general bid... The owners contracted with the designer independently who is not a card carrying member of the ccb.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.