I read with interest the story of an Architect, who after appointing a surveying practice on a commercial development was found liable for discrepancies in their service. Lawyers sited an absence of professional diligence in the selection of surveyors. The Client they said, “had a right to expect the Architect to nominate surveyors that possessed the required skills and assurances”. OK it’s not a stand out legal moment but it does raise questions as to where responsibilities lie. The issue is not one of price, but peace of mind. Surveying is a high-risk business. Outside the obvious issues of accuracy there is a significant risk to health and safety. It makes sense to nominate surveyors who have passed a basic competency audit. An audit that ensures the required safety certification, risk assessments, methodology and warranties are in place. Sadly, in this case, without the surveyors professional indemnity, the Architects insurers picked up the bill. I wonder what the charges would have been if somebody had been seriously injured, or worse. Food for thought.
