Looking for a bit of advise, I completed a refurbishment project about 3 months ago. It was a basement flat conversion in a west end property in the west end of Glasgow. As part of the project we removed several walls leaving different floor levels in three areas throughout the property. We were instructed by the Architect to level the chipboard sub-floor area’s by raising one to the same level as the highest and sweetening the other at a gently slop. This is minuted from the site meetings. We then installed reclaimed oak flooring on top but at the last minute the Architect changed the orientation of the flooring. This caused a tongue and groove board joint to be sitting on top of the point where the high and low of the floor meet. The house has historic dampness and over the last 3 months the flooring has taken in moisture and cupped with expansion and split at the level joint. I did a moister survey and have recorded moisture levels off the scale and given the Architect TRADA data sheets explaining the phenomenon. However the client has retention on the project and is wanting it repaired under the defects liability close in a Minor Works Contract. One is this fair and two should it not be an indemnity insurance claim against the Architect. Thank you in advance.
PS Im not a rough builder We have a very good reputation and enjoy repeat business from most of our clients including the Architect in question

You in UNION,

No

As a guide whoever is responsible for the decisions should take the hit – if you were expected/paid to advise then it could be you.

Has Architect said you should pay for repairs?

LOL @ UNION

That was a joke sorry, as a regular says join a union.

Architects are always right, newver make mistakes, and are clever, so they think.

Well all the ones ive ever met, you stand little chance of winning.

Does the architect’s decision to change the orientation appear in any of the minutes?

Ah, I did wonder, still LOL.

OP if you have a good rel with architect then hopefully they won’t try and stiff you?

He has written to us saying if we are found to be at fault we would be expected to repair it, this i agree with but we opened up the area today and it was pretty conclusive the problem was an accumulation of the damp the joint leveling and the orientation of the flooring.But he has not stated categorically that we are at fault.All though that was the suggestion when the floor joint was uncovered until i reminded him he instructed it and changed the floor orientation and we were not responsible to insure product worked in harmony with the building that was his job.

Haze, yes this also appears in the minutes

If the problem is down to the architect’s decision, you had no input, and it’s minuted, sounds like you are OK.

Why would the orientation of the boards change how the undersides touches the High point?
And laid on chipboard? Surely there’s a dpm installed?
I assume you have details? And a set of red-lines to show how the installation differed from the design?
But basically the client won’t care and will just want it fixed. You could suggest he pursues the architect but you probably won’t get paid either way…
Has the architect signed off practical completion?
I don’t get involved in domestic work so am probably not the best to answer this. Sorry.

if the board ran at 90 degrees to the the joint they would span it more gradually and the damp problem would expand along the boards. There is a dpm below the new area we laid but we were told to retain the existing floor. The damp is coming from the party wall, from a redundant fire place. We have minuted meetings, AI’s and agreed valuations for the variations and yes we have agreed Practical Completion.

Depends on who has contractual links.

Are you a contractor to the client with the architect supplying design dervices to you?
…Or are the architects acting as project manager to the client with you as a building sub-contractor to them?
…Or are you and the architect both sub-contracting to a seperate body – ie the client or thier agent?
Or is there another arrangement?

Whatever the link, the client almost certainly is entitled to have the remedial works completed without further charge (unless they specifically requested work to be completed contradictory to the design).
From your post, it sounds like a specification error by the architect. If you work for them then you should be entitled to treat the remedials as additional works, and be paid for them. They will need the work done.
If the architect works for you, they could be still liable, but you will almost certainly find it harder to recover any costs from them without legal action. However , you would still be liable to the client to ensure the work is completed satisfactorily, so should complete the work then bill the architect. They may then dispute their responsibility, and you may haveto decide how valuable the relationship is.

The Architect is the Clients agent, we tendered for the work and were hired by the client with the Architect being retained as the Contract Administrator. He project managed the job and was responsible for all design changes.

I did a moister survey and have recorded moisture levels off the scale

Surely that’s the real issue not the direction of the oak flooring ?

OK it might have highlighted the problem, but I assume that moisture levels off the scale isn’t acceptable to the client ? The oak flooring appears to have failed, ie cupped/expanded, because of excessive moisture, not because of the direction it was laid. So why is there so much damp ? Is due to poor work on your part, or failure by the architects to instruct remedial work to deal with the damp ? Answering that question would point to who is responsible, I would have thought.

He has written to us saying if we are found to be at fault we would be expected to repair it

Just the flooring but not the damp problem ? Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious.

This was my first argument, the damp problem was historic. We reported this to the Architect during the works but were told the client had no funds to fix it but today the let the cat out of the bag and said the damp didn’t affect their last wooden floor so told us the problem must have been caused by the floor levels according to the manufacturer.

Ernie’s point is most valid. Who is responsible for the moisture problem?
Was the basement intended to be waterproof? And why is it leaking so much?
Did you install all waterproofing measure in accordance with the architects spec. and do you have proof (site photos) and did the architect witness this, and aprove the structure and waterproofing before instructing you to start the interior fitout?

You need to check your contract with the architect carefully. If you were contracted to “produce a waterproof structure” or “ensure all waterproofing is complete” then you may be liable for that. You may even have accepted some “design liability” without realising. If you contract is more like “supply building and construction services or labour under the direction of the architect” then you are less likely to be liable.

edit: you’ve covered my question in your las post 🙂

the damp problem was historic. We reported this to the Architect during the works but were told the client had no funds to fix it

This is the key. As ernie says:

failure by the architects to instruct remedial work to deal with the damp

If you are confident in your work, try getting a second opinion from the flooring manufacturer. Tell them you have a problem with how their product is performing in the damp, and invite them for a site visit. They’ll either tell you that its being used outside of its reccomended spec, or they’ll come to site look at it, and tell you the damp’s the problem. Either way, its another voice on your side.

We were contracted to supply and install only, there was no waterproofing works within our contract or within the design brief. We installed 3m square of new flooring in the center of the building on to an existing concrete solumn. We over laid and leveled an existing floor to the same height of the highest existing floor and to the edge of our new area and our new area of sub-floor married into another existing floor that sloped down and away from our floor. All DPM’S and DPC’S are existing.

Loum,I did this today also and he corroborated my findings. That’s where i got all the TRADA info.

If the decide not to pay what can i do. They have £3500 of a £150,000 job not a big amount but with the margins on jobs being very tight these days its a big chunk of the profit.

From what’s been said up to now, I’m pretty sure that you can now demonstrate that the architect is liable for refusing to adress the damp issue (which you reported prior to working), and should be paying for the remedials.

Dig out your records and you should be ok. 🙂

However, how you handle it will determine how that relationship continues. You need to decide how vital they are as a continuing client.

Do they still require you to return to do any more remedials?
And how long is left before the retention payment is due to you?

I wouldn’t work for this Architect again if he was the last Architect in Glasgow.We have already told him we will not be pricing anymore work to him, so no big loss.

Thanks all for your input. As always STW is the fountain of all knowledge

We have another 3 months to go and to date we have nothing other than minor shrinkage to contend with but this is what i’m wondering also will the remedial cost us more than the money outstanding just to avoid paying more money or to just sicken us. The joys of contracting.

Just out of interest, what “repair” work does the client want you to do – do they want you to renew a few boards, rip the whole lot out, change the direction, or something else ?

If it’s just a few boards which need replacing then isn’t it worth doing ? OK presumably the problem will come back but they can’t really argue that if they are denying that the problem is due to excessive damp.

EDIT : Sorry I type very slowly – hadn’t seen your last post.

They haven’t yet told us what the would expect us to do. If we replace the boards locally this would solve the problem short term but would still leave the damp problem and the boards lifting over the joint. To sort the joint issue we would have to lift a whole bedroom level the existing sub floor and renew the oak flooring. To fix the damp we would need to strip out the bespoke units we fitted,lift the floor the existing floor tank the wall with a membrane frame out the wall and replace the floors. Both more than the retention is worth to us.

at the risk of repeating – as long as you can prove with accurate records that all works were carried out to the architects instructions your in the right. From your descriptions it sounds like overlaying the original area has amplified an existing damp problem ie trapping it??? – not sure if its any different it Scotland but the onus is on you to prove that you followed all instructions and details – any problems arising would therfore be down to the architects cock ups (don’t forget that all encompassing ‘duty of care’ on your part to flag up any problems that you may have foreseen( which you did ) As you rightly say it comes down to wether you want to walk away and lose goodwill or stay and possibly making further losses.

The architect will be fighting his corner as hard as you will – they are as strapped for cash as you!! We’ve got practices down here (Yorkshire) doing stuff for nowt – big practices doing dormers and extensions!!

Just read that back – probably no use to you at all!!

At the moment then, you wait and see what is asked for.

When/if they ask for repairs/remedials you can reply to them stating that your contract works were completed in accordance with the agreed design and specification and accepted. You raised the issue of the damp with the architect at the time, and were instructed to continue without addressing it. If it is now a concern, and further works are required, then these works would be considerred additional works, not remedial works, and be charged by yourselves as such.
Do not start additional works until they agree,however small, they could later claim that you have accepted responsibility, and the works could easily grow.
There is a fair chance that the client will want this corrected completely. From their viewpoint, they are certainly not responsible and are paying good money for a complete package, design and build, with no latent defects. This could now end up costly so you need to be firm from the start that you have fulfilled your responsibilities.
Just because the client is asking them to perform remedial works, it does not mean that further works by you should be covered as remedial works. There are two sepperate contracts- yours with the architect, and the architects with the client. If there is a definite fault with the specification, then the architect has failed in his resposibilities, and is liable to pay for works to correct it.
The situation could go anywhere depending on the clients decisions. He may require the manufacturer’s warranty, which they could refuse due to the excess damp. That would leave anyone with responsibility for the remedials with a big bill for a total refit. The architect may even be removed or pull out. Therefore, try not to “fall out” with the client – there is no problem between you, and there may turn out to be more work to do. On the other hand, if everyone is sensible, there may be a way that the works can be made good with only minimum work required. Probably the best solution for everyone, especially whoever’s paying.
Either way, make sure responsibility is sorted before you work because it could easily become more complicated than it first appears.

Try to keep all corespondance regarding your retention sepperate. It is a sepperate issue. Write to them on the correct date requesting they release it to you. Re-emphasise that you have completed your contract works in accordance with the specification and design, and they have no valid reason to withold it. Keep writing, if they don’t pay, then maybe consider small claims court.

As per loum / talltom posts but I would also question /review the following.

The flooring appears to run across different substrates. Concrete / chipboard?
Is the oak flooring floating or fixed down?
What was the separation membrane / specification? Who specified it and how was it intended to deal with the ongoing damp problem?
What was the moisture content of the oak flooring when delivered and was it given time to acclimatise within the installed envirnoment?
Width of oak board and board direction relative to room area being aware that the greater expansion occurs across the grain. Does the change in board direction increase or reduce this expanision risk?
Condition of the existing chipboard floors prior to installation?
Profile of cupping? Assumed expansion on the underside of the board due to moisture ingress?
Extent of the cupping?
Has the floor been installed in accordance with BS8201.