Trying the Expert

As many practitioners know, disputes rarely go the distance limiting opportunities for expert witnesses to speak before a tribunal. For over 2 decades it has been my experience that well presented evidence helps to bring disputes to a close without the need for a hearing. But recently I found myself presenting evidence under cross-examination in the Technology and Construction Court twice in quick succession.

The first dispute arose out of deficiencies in underpinning and other works carried out in breach of a party wall award. The second was a dispute over the quality of built work - mostly various pavements.

In each case, I, an architect, was ranged against engineers. In both trials the opposing barristers sought to dismiss my evidence not on its merit but on the presumption that an architect is no expert in building technology. Some may suppose architects do no more than visualise concepts (or ‘colouring-in’ as some colleagues put it) but I was more than happy to be put to the test and demonstrate that we know whereof we speak.

Piling into brown fields

the drainage connected to the buildings stays in place as the ground settles exposing once flush gulleys

Building and ground part company as voids form between ground and undersides of ground floors

  Horizontal fissures forming over d.p.c.'s as brickwork bows and arches

Brickwork over d.p.c. sliding out at external corners with stepped cracking below

Fissures running between window and door openings in brickwork

 

Near vertical cracking close to corners

Dry lining being torn apart as the masonry fractures

Building over deep landfill can be perilous.

If the piles work, the buildings stay up as the roads paths and gardens settle.

Long piles can settle and deflect unevenly causing enough differential movements to crack rigid superstructures, jamb doors and windows and tear internal wall linings.

Adding to this site's troubles, brickwork without any movement control joints adds another cause of cracking.

extensions on conventional concrete rafts float away with the sinking ground tearing themselves off the piled buildings

Defect free building is as much a matter of understanding client goals as it is of achieving competent detailing and construction

The Brief
A successful project starts in good co-ordination and the development of an effective brief.  Briefs evolve with

ArchiFACT Ltd Celebrates 2010 - 2011

At ArchiFACT we are celebrating the completion of our first year of trading and we would like to offer our best wishes to all of our clients and those who have worked with us, helping to make this year a success

Third Party/Section 20 Actions

Often, in connection with building defects, reliance on information conveyed by manufacturers is cited as a cause. For example, a material or product may be specified because of the representations made by the manufacturer or supplier about its qualities. The product once bought may be found to be unsuitable and the sales literature to misstate the product’s qualities.

Building owners making the claim may have no contract with the product manufacturer. They may nevertheless, either directly or through their design team, have placed reliance on the representations made by the manufacturer.

‘State-of-the-Art’ defence

‘State-of-the-art’ may be defined as the current stage of development of practice or technology, involving the use of the latest techniques or equipment. It often involves the first or early use of materials or techniques before they have been proven by long practice. There is inevitably a risk in being one of the first to use something new. This risk may reduce in time as use reveals the weaknesses inherent in each development. Thus, with practice, the flaws in that which was innovative are discovered. Growing familiarity with each state-of-the-art development provides the knowledge base to improve reliability and avoid error.

Oral and written contracts

Whilst, strictly, an oral agreement is as binding as a written contract, dispute is more likely and proof more difficult where the paperwork is deficient or non-existent. There is often merit in the old saw: ‘an oral contract is worth the paper it is written on’.

Many builders are far keener to start on site than they are to prepare paperwork. This is frequently true of domestic projects where householders, lacking prior experience in building work and unassisted by qualified professionals, are seduced by the self-assured approach characteristic of many jobbing builders. It is easy to be swept along by builders’ general relaxed air of confidence into not worrying over the unknowns of building work. It is, after all, reassuringly routine ‘bread and butter work’ to builders while they are talking the job in.

Where householders seek the formalities of standard written contracts, they are likely to be assured that ‘no one else asks for that’ and to be solemnly advised ‘that contract stuff makes the job cost more’.

Then the unexpected occurs and causes delays, unforeseen costs and defects – with resulting dissatisfaction and dispute.