I have a tricky situation I need and answer to from fellow architect professionals from the UK:
I am being asked as part of my employment to certify buildings that are not up to scratch from a Building Regulations point of view. The problem is our B Control Inspector is not doing his job and missing things - for example handrail to a stair in an existing apartment, smoke seals to bedroom doors, and latest one is the space between the bottom of the stair and the front door to a house. But because of overwork or whatever he is willing to approve these buildings even in their dodgy state.
The problem is I am also being asked to certify these buildings that I havent designed or been involved with before now and I am obviously under pressure from my employer because we are getting paid for the certification. But it is my professional opinion that I cannot certify something I am not happy with even if B Control approve them.
My employer is using the argument that its B Controls issue if they sign off non-compliant buildings and 'we' cant be held liable if we have pointed out the failing to the BC Inspector as I have, and in any case have PI insurance
But surely I could be held liable in negligence and struck off if I am signing of bad buildings? How would you approach this matter? We are looking around for other B Control agencies but they are all very busy and we still are using the old one because he is obviously quite flexible (too flexible in my opinion!).
Be interested to hear what you have to say on this. I think its a growing problem myself where architects are increasingly having to certify buildings during construction they have had no involvement with and therefore its too late to make radical changes. More and more developers are using this approach because its cheaper than standard warranties.
archinine
Aug 1, 17 6:23 pm
We've run into this issue though more often with existing buildings. In our case if pressed by the client verbally to sign off on something, we make certain to put it in writing that life safety issues must be addressed and any certifications we provide are contingent upon bringing those items up to code.
We have the privelage that many don't to simply turn down clients who press us for too much liability. Unfortunately some firms are in a situation where they need the money too badly to say no.
If you are personally signing off on this you may need to put your foot down. If not, put it in writing to the person who is signing off that xyz must be handled. Worst case scenario your boss gets sued and you tried your best to warn them but are not personally liable.
I have a tricky situation I need and answer to from fellow architect professionals from the UK:
I am being asked as part of my employment to certify buildings that are not up to scratch from a Building Regulations point of view. The problem is our B Control Inspector is not doing his job and missing things - for example handrail to a stair in an existing apartment, smoke seals to bedroom doors, and latest one is the space between the bottom of the stair and the front door to a house. But because of overwork or whatever he is willing to approve these buildings even in their dodgy state.
The problem is I am also being asked to certify these buildings that I havent designed or been involved with before now and I am obviously under pressure from my employer because we are getting paid for the certification. But it is my professional opinion that I cannot certify something I am not happy with even if B Control approve them.
My employer is using the argument that its B Controls issue if they sign off non-compliant buildings and 'we' cant be held liable if we have pointed out the failing to the BC Inspector as I have, and in any case have PI insurance
But surely I could be held liable in negligence and struck off if I am signing of bad buildings? How would you approach this matter? We are looking around for other B Control agencies but they are all very busy and we still are using the old one because he is obviously quite flexible (too flexible in my opinion!).
Be interested to hear what you have to say on this. I think its a growing problem myself where architects are increasingly having to certify buildings during construction they have had no involvement with and therefore its too late to make radical changes. More and more developers are using this approach because its cheaper than standard warranties.
We've run into this issue though more often with existing buildings. In our case if pressed by the client verbally to sign off on something, we make certain to put it in writing that life safety issues must be addressed and any certifications we provide are contingent upon bringing those items up to code.
We have the privelage that many don't to simply turn down clients who press us for too much liability. Unfortunately some firms are in a situation where they need the money too badly to say no.
If you are personally signing off on this you may need to put your foot down. If not, put it in writing to the person who is signing off that xyz must be handled. Worst case scenario your boss gets sued and you tried your best to warn them but are not personally liable.