+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.