Elphinstone Estates call in administrators : September 2010 : News : Scottish Architecture in profile the building environment in Scotland - Urban Realm

Elphinstone Estates call in administrators : September 2010 : News : Scottish Architecture in profile the building environment in Scotland - Urban Realm

Revolutionary transplant op made it easier for son to give kidney to his dad - The Daily Record

Here is the link to the Daily Record Article on the Transplant written by Lisa Adams. Many thanks Lisa.

Revolutionary transplant op made it easier for son to give kidney to his dad - The Daily Record


You can also donate to Yorkhill Children's Foundation HERE.


LETS SEE IF WE CAN GET TO THE £5,000 BEFORE CHRISTMAS

Blogging: Edinburgh New Media Breakfast | Attacat of Edinburgh

Blogging: Edinburgh New Media Breakfast Attacat of Edinburgh

This is an interesting summary of this morning's New Media Breakfast which is hosted by Winning Entrepreneurs and Fatbuzz..

#Ask The Architect - Why Client's Should Perhaps Stay Away From Site

I want to write a short post about a recent case which actually went to Court. Needless to say my Client won, which I am delighted about but there were some important lessons to be told.

Yes, the topic is whether or not Client's should be allowed on site. Now I'm not suggesting that they should be restricted from site however the dangers lurk when they give verbal direction, arguably instruction, without the architect being made aware and without the contractor/sub contractor seeking fromal instruction from the architect.

Here's the scenario. blockarchitects were overhauling a small commercial unit, where the client wanted to provide two commercial units on the ground floor and a new 2bed flat on the upper floor. As the contract administrators we set up a formal contract between ourselves and a main contractor. Towards the end of the build we terminated the main contractor's contract...and here's where it gets interesting. A sub contractor, after having submitted invoices to the main contractor never got paid for plumbing works. So what did he decide to do? Yes, he decided to persue a payment direct from the Client and his whole case hinged on trying to establish that he was never contracted by the main contractor and that he 'thought' that the Client was paying him direct!

So what has this got to do with the Client being on site? Well, the Client operated his business from a portakabing 10m from the site so obviously was at close becon call for all and any trades persons to query and or seek clarification. The Client was happy to give such direction ie clarification on socket/radiator/plumbing positions etc and at the end of the day it was in his interest to do so particularly when the main contractor was not performing.

This you see though is where the problems occur because the traditional methods of instructing works through the Architect is depleted. 1. because the main contractor is not performing his duties to seek the Architect's instructions and clarification on Client direction AND 2. the Client is not confirming his on site direction to the Architect.

In my opinion this exacerbates the problem of clear communication lines but also and astoundingly the Sub Contractor in court then decided to argue that as the Client was providing verbal clarifications on site to the Sub Contractor and that little communication was provided by the Main Contractor that this meant that the Sub Contractor was not party to the Main Contract and as such should be paid directly by the Client.

The court hearing was about 9-10 mths ago and I am pleased to say that the Court recently found in favour of my Client. As a court wittness I stated in court that I was 'bamboozled' that the sub-contractor thought it possible to seek payment direct from the Client particularly considering that he had previously invoiced the Main Contractor. Apparently my bewilderment was a large factor in The Court's decision.

On a personal note when I actually was informed by the Client that a personal invoice was raised against him I was indeed bamboozled and somewhat surprised bordering on shock. It was just simply unthinkable, in my opinion, that the sub contractor had a justifiable claim for payment.

So what are the lessons:-

Ultimately we would advise all Clients to proceed cautiously with their proximity to site as they can often get dragged into site discussions without understanding the potential liability of any discussion and or decisions they make on site.

Contractors should always seek written instructions from the Architect following any verbal direction on site by the Client.

Ideally, Clients should only attend site in the presence of their Architect.