Useless Certifier

We have just had our plans knocked back by council because our certifier forgot to tell the architect that we were in an overland flow area.

The architect says we'll need to start again from scratch which means all the money we've previously given him, the certifier, the engineer and the council is down the drain.

It has been suggested that I compain to the BSA but I have been told that they won't/can't do anything. Is this true?

The only other option I can think of is a small claim against the Certifier.

Any ideas? Please!

How come your certifier was briefing the architect in any case?

Surely you knew your place was in an overland flow path, or didn't your solicitors tell you when you bought it?

Maybe you should be looking a bit closer to home?

P
:rolleyes:

So how come the certifier knew you were in an overlanｄ　flow　area　and YOU didn‘t?
Sounds to me like you may have A　Claim against the certifier‘s or THE architecｔ‘s professional idemenity insurance.
The basis of the claim would be failure OF one or the other or both to act IN accordance with expected professional standards.　　Ｉ　mean how does council know it‘s　an overland flow area unless it`s on one of council`s zoning maps?


ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Sounds to me like you may have A　Claim against the certifier‘s or THE architecｔ‘s professional idemenity insurance.
The basis of the claim would be failure OF one or the other or both to act IN accordance with expected professional standards.　　Ｉ　mean how does council know it‘s　an overland flow area unless it`s on one of council`s zoning maps?

---

Now that's a big call in the absence of any information?

Who was responsible for briefing the consultants, or were they asked to go and do all the relevant searches? If so, why?

What would have happened if the place had been in a freeway resumption area? Would it have been up to the architect or certifier?

At what point does the owner take responsibility for his own negligence?

What was the real loss?? Presumably the cost of amending the drawings. How much are lawyers going to cost?? Presumably a lot more!

Out of curiosity, is the term "architect" being bandied about here as it usually is??? Why haven't you spoken with the board of architects if it's really his/her fault?? (which I really can't see)

cheers,

P
:rolleyes:

As a Building Designer, my first action when approached by a Client would be to check for any zoning requirements & overlays for the site.
I would assume this would be a normal course of events for anyone designing from a clients brief.
The Building Certifier should have done the same before approving the plans and they are also at fault as it is their responsibility to check that the plans meet the requirements of the BCA and local government etc.
At the end of the day the primary onus is on the designer. It is their responsibility as a 'professional' to make the client aware of any restrictions that may impact upon the design.

I agree with you Peter, but I suspect there's more to it than meets the eye.

For instance, if there is a Building Surveyor involved, assuming its a house in Qld and therefore no planning issues, the first time Council would see the project would be when the Building Surveyor files the Approval.

Council doesn't get to "knock back" plans?

Or is there a separate operational works application involved?

I'd rather see all the facts I'm afraid. It looks to me as though the architect/designer was briefed by the Certifier. Fair enough I'd say, and overland flow isn't something that bobs up every day.

If you had an overland flow path on your property, you'd surely know about it, and why wouldn't you tell your consultants?

cheers,

P

Totally agree with your assumptions 'biting' that there may be more involved.
Altough registered in Qld i'm not familiar with the terminology - I assume that the reference is to our equiv. in Vic. of 'flood plain levels'
My reteric was that to my mind at the end of the day the onus is on the designer to explore the restrictions that may be in place [ legislation wise ] on a design for a particular site despite the owners lack of divulgance.
The certifier only examins the drawings as presented by the designer or [architect] & has no responsibility or requirement to liase with the owner either before or during the design process, but when presented with the plans they have an obligation to reject the plans if they don't comply to all relevant legislation.
In summary when the proverbial hits the fan - the designer wears the cost.

The fact that the property was in an overland flow area will obviously have been in the details provided to our solicitor when we purchased the property but that didn't really make a difference to our decision to purchase, as the property is in the street we have been waiting to buy in. Furthermore, as it is such a good location, we are willing to build a house to fit the block rather than buying a block to fit our house.

It was actually a build over stormwater application that was submitted to council. This on its own would have passed but the certifier hadn't checked that the property was also in an overland flow area.

We have spoken to the head of the department in Brisbane City council that failed the application (they actually deal with stormwater and overland flow applications in the same department) and he has confirmed that all certifiers have access to the same data as them and it clearly shows the overland flow on the database.

He also made reference to the question on the certifiers "tick sheet" which must be completed prior to all plans being passed. It clearly asks "Is the property in an overland flow area? Yes or No". This box has been ticked "No".

Regardless as to what we may or may not have told the certifier, he is paid to fill in forms correctly having made all relevent checks HIMSELF. Afterall, it is his career on the line so why should he take our advice on filling in his own forms. On this occasion, he simply hasn't bothered to do the job we have paid him to do properly.

The plans submitted to the certifier by the architect met all his requirements and this is why the architect is clearly as upset as us. Why should he have to pay for the certifiers mistake (at least that is how it appears to both us and the architect).

We are considering asking the certifier to pay for amanded plans, engineering and council fees. What reply do you think we can expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tobydogger

................We are considering asking the certifier to pay for amanded plans, engineering and council fees. What reply do you think we can expect?

---

"I'll see you in court":o

Toby,
if this is the beginning of your owner builder journey then it doesn't auger well for the future.
Simple question: Were you aware that your block was in an overland flow area?

If yes, and you didn't tell your architect or certifier then that was pretty foolish.

If no, then I can only assume that either you didn't ask your solicitor to do the neccesary searches (foolish) or that you had a negligent solicitor.

When you start owner building how much responsibility will you take for the job?

Mick

Have you spoken to the certifier and if so what did they say :?.

Have they admitted they ticked "No" when they would have known the answer was "Yes"? (Have I got that right they MUST have known, not assumed but categorically would have known?)

If it was thier mistake then fairness would indicate they would be liable for the architects redraw to take into account the modifications required. You can ask them to do this and if they dont then advise them in writing that you will be seeking compensation in the small claims court. You dont need a solicitor for this (unless qld is different) and will save you money.

It also sounds a bit dramatic that they have to start from scratch, unless of course there are living areas within the flood levels and I doubt that unless everyone is wearing baggy pants and fake red noses. Wouldnt the changes be to the plumbing / stormwater / piers etc, not to the design itself, which would indicate minor alterations.

Maybe a little more detail of the situation / costs is needed so the correct advice can be given. :)

I'm a little bit confused.
Who fills out the building application?
Does a 'Building Certifier' carry out the same role as a Building Surveyor' here in Vic.?

If I'd have filled in the forms and done all the searches myself then I'd take it on the chin. The fact remains that I have paid good money for a certifier to fill the forms and carry out the searches on my behalf. As such it is his responsibilty to ensure they are completed correctly - isn't it?

The solicitor didn't mention anything to us about the property being in an overland flow area. If I'd known what an overland flow was perhaps I'd have asked.

Regarding the plans, as we can't have any permanent structure on the groundfloor the existing plans are totally useless.

Now we have had time to take stock we plan on having a meeting with the certifier next week.

Watch this space!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ausdesign

I'm a little bit confused.
Who fills out the building application?
Does a 'Building Certifier' carry out the same role as a Building Surveyor' here in Vic.?

---

Yes Ausdesign, "Certifier" and "Surveyor" are interchangable terms, but as certifier would hardly be the applicant? They may fill in the form as a service, but .....?

I'm still not clear.

One would normally get a certifier involved AFTER the drawings have been done, the certifier then checks them for compliance, and this case would have found the overland flow path presumably, after the fact. IF you've asked the certifier to get all the information to brief your architect, fair enough, but that's a bit irregular?

It all seems pretty clear, if you're building over a stormwater line, there's a fair chance that overland flow would be involved, and an experienced architect may have picked that up anyway. On the other hand, if you have stormwater running across your land, your solicitor SHOULD have alerted you to that fact when you bought, AND the overland flow path SHOULD have been also documented:

As I thought:

Quote:

---

The fact that the property was in an overland flow area will obviously have been in the details provided to our solicitor when we purchased the property but that didn't really make a difference to our decision to purchase, as the property is in the street we have been waiting to buy in. Furthermore, as it is such a good location, we are willing to build a house to fit the block rather than buying a block to fit our house.

---

So if it was in the details, surely that's a pretty important part of briefing your architect?? You've said you wanted to build a house to fit the block, so how do you do that if you don't provide all the information?

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but if you knew it was there you have a bit of an obligation here too I think. Put it this way; I wouldn't be wasting too much money on solicitors.

Cheers,

P

In Vic we have a "section 32" which goes with every sale. this includes pretty much everything a prospective buyer neeeds to know, including overlays. As the buyer it is in your own best interest to thoroughly read it.

When we bought our current place it clearly stated that part of the land was on a flood plane. There is a creek at the end of the street, about 6 metres below street level. I figured that the house is about 10 metres above street level, so i should be safe. It was a decision i made based on the available info, and I take full responsibilty for it.

People keep suggesting that we knew about the overland flow and simply decided not to tell the certifier.

THE FIRST TIME WE'D EVER HEARD THE TERM OVERLAND FLOW WAS WHEN THE BUILD OVER STORMWATER APPLICATION WAS REJECTED.

If we'd have been advised of its existance by our solicitor or our architect then of course we'd have told the certifier.

From what I can gather this should have been picked up in the first instance by the solicitor when he was doing the conveyancing, by the architect when he visited the site, and then by the certifier before he submitted the plans to council and we should have been advised accordingly before spending our money.

The fact that we havn't been advised at any stage by anyone doesn't make it our fault.

If this is what I can expect in the future from all trades people I'd probably be best doing a course in law, design, certifying, carpentry, plumbing, roofing, electricals, aircon, kitchen fitting, tiling, landscape gardening, concreting, etc, etc, etc.... as it appears that no one is willing to accept responsibility for their work and I could obviously do a better job myself.

If this is what being an owner builder means then how far does it go.... Do I need to forge my own nails????

I think on reflection that I've just been unlucky. Reading posts on this Forum gives me some hope that not everyone in Australia wears a ten gallon hat and chaps.