# Cost of architect to sign off house for mortgage



## aishling (31 May 2010)

Hi,
Was just quoted €1800 for architect to sign off house for mortgage stage 
payments which includes 5 site visits. 

Is is it just me or is this expensive?

Thanks,
Aishling


----------



## hoppy (31 May 2010)

we paid the same for which included 6 site visits


----------



## RKQ (31 May 2010)

Get some more quotes - at least 3.
Lots of healthy competition in the marketplace now.

1800 isn't excessive - maybe try to increase number of visits to 7 or 8 for that fee?

In reality your Architect will probably save you that in spotting mistakes early or ensuring good workmanship & quality finish.


----------



## Whiskey (2 Jun 2010)

Definitely if it's a good architect, 1800 sounds good value.

You should get more than 1 quote of course....

As a matter of interest, did you get an architect to design the house, and is it the same architect who is quoting the 1800 for the mortgage stage payments signoff /site visits ?


----------



## mf1 (2 Jun 2010)

aishling said:


> Hi,
> Was just quoted €1800 for architect to sign off house for mortgage stage
> payments which includes 5 site visits.
> 
> ...



Does anyone else find this terrifying? The idea that a professional will put their reputation and career on the line, for that kind of money,  to certify works with a certificate that can be used against them, for the full value of the house, when they may not be supervising but, rather, making the odd site visit? 

And the casual approach as if it was just putting a tick in a box with no legal ramifications? And they expect to be paid? 

mf


----------



## onq (3 Jun 2010)

+1 What MF1 has posted.

Architects expose themselves to litigation arising from the faults of others when they certify work.

A full assessment of a built property, even under the fig leaf of "visual inspection only" covers a lot of ground.

And the inspecting and certifying archtiect is coming to it _de novo_ and has to review the design from the ground up.

He makes assumptions about foundations that may be unwise - I have seen houses built "rotated" on a square foundation.

He makes assumptions about the insulation "sandwich" that may be unwise - the requirements for sealing and weather-sealing externally require that a smoke test and blower test be done as part of any certification - is that being paid for too with the €1.8K?

He also makes assumptions about the quality of services penetrations, pipework, ducting and fire sealing - are their certs available from all sub-contractors for him to review, can he contact their former employers to form an opinion on their work?

If that sounds like nit-picking that's because most people are not liable in law to the extent and architect is and unless you properly inspect all such relavant issues you can miss something that may seriously concern the owner or a successor in title within the six years statute of limitations period.

And of course, if its a self builder who built using direct labour and no architect then its a significant risk to certify at all.

In such a case "no architect" excludes engineers and draughtsmen with limited experience of domestic detailing and building regulation compliance.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                              as a defence or support - in and of itself -         should       legal        action    be      taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                              Real Life with rights to inspect and issue       reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## aishling (5 Jun 2010)

Thanks for the relies guys!

No it wasnt the same architect that drew up the original plans as he has since retired. This architect did some adjustments to the inside layout alright....

We have since gotten a quote of 1500 +vat which includes 7 site visits... so not too much in the difference I guess but we will probably go with him

I realise they have to charge to cover their insurance costs! Just seemed a little expensive since the same guy charged 2200 for full planning process & sign off etc for a very similar house, doesnt seem to add up to me...


----------



## onq (10 Jun 2010)

Maybe he needs money to go on holidays and forget about the recession for a week.

ONQ.


----------



## RKQ (10 Jun 2010)

aishling said:


> Just seemed a little expensive since the same guy charged 2200 for full planning process & sign off etc for a very similar house, ...


 
2200 for a full planning application and mortgage stage payments?
Wow, thats incredible. I can't see how it could be done to be honest.

1500+VAT for 7 site inspections seems competitive. Just remember that its just "inspection" for stage payments & final certs of compliance. Its *not* project management or supervision of the works.

Also its easier to certify your own design as you designed it. You know it complies with Building Regs and the your design can be built. This is not always the cases with other peoples designs. If an Architect, Arch Tech or Engineer takes on anothers design - they will have to check the design to ensure compliance etc. It can be very difficult to do.
So maybe this person is charging a little entra to inspect & sign off on someone else's design.

(Holiday ONQ? - ah, yes we used to have them before the big R. Feck it I'm going to have one this year too)


----------



## sfag (14 Jun 2010)

An enginner can sign it off for less. From my one experience it was a fairly casual visual inspection - 6 visits. Didn't know they could be liable. 
Am suprised at that since they are only doing the job that building control should really be doing. Would have thought the architect who did the plans would be laible. Then the builder / tradesman might be liable if they dont stick to the plans, and so on. 
Surely signoff is a compliance matter - not really a QA issue.


----------



## RKQ (21 Jun 2010)

sfag said:


> . From my one experience it was a fairly casual visual inspection - 6 visits. Didn't know they could be liable.


 
Define "casual visual inspection". An experiencd professional will quickly see a problem. 20 years on site and you'll appear very casual as you scrutinise the exposed structure. Check it fully.

My Doctor gives me a very "casual" yearly examination. He gives a very through examination, his "casual" questions are friendly but really he is interogating me - fishing to find out if I have a problem. Thats what professionals do.

Builder and each trade is liable from his own work - Workmanship Building Regaulations. However, Architects and Engineers have PI insurance. They are seen as a soft touch by Legal eagles. They may not be liable but if the Builder goes bust (why bother suing him if he is broke) Next in line poor innocent professional with ample insurance.


----------

