ᐅ Holding an architect accountable for design errors?

Hello everyone, we are building on a sloped plot of land in the Rhineland. It’s a single-family house with a basement. The maximum allowed ridge height from the street is 12 meters (39 feet). Since we are building with a staggered shed roof, we are reaching that height. Our plan was to have direct, level access from the patio door to the garden. The architect did point out that the garden was “not completely level,” but that was all.

Now we are at the ground floor stage. To get out onto the patio, about 150 cm (5 feet) has to be excavated!!! In other words, we are set way too deep into the slope!

My question is: Shouldn’t the architect have informed us that a different type of roof (lower, e.g. a gable roof) would have been more suitable for the plot? That way, we could have built higher and had more or less level access outside.

All the plans, building permit / planning permission, etc. are correct. But as a layperson, is one expected to foresee that it would look this drastic in reality?

Additionally, the architect said that the house with the shed roof would cost “only” 5,000 euros more than with a regular roof. But if you factor in the extremely deep excavation, which otherwise would have been less, and the enormous costs for landscaping (overcoming 1.50 m (5 feet) drop to the backyard and 2 meters (7 feet) to the left neighbor!!!), we are definitely talking about a significantly higher amount of extra costs!!

Also, we are much lower than the neighbors, which is really unpleasant.

Has anyone had similar experiences? Is it worth consulting a lawyer to claim damages or at least seek the architect’s contribution to the costs of the outdoor area?

We are totally desperate!

Were there no elevation or section drawings that showed the site topography?!?

So, as a layperson, you can’t notice 10 or 20cm (4 or 8 inches)? Okay. But simply missing 150–200cm (59–79 inches) during the planning phase? I’m not sure there is even a framework attached there. However, this is just an opinion from a non-expert.

We were, of course, aware that the site is hilly and that we need to build retaining walls next to the neighbor’s property. However, these significant height differences are not visible in the plans. I simply feel poorly advised. The architect should have a) informed us that we cannot have direct ground-level access as we repeatedly emphasized. It was clear that the land slopes upward afterwards, but not that we would first need to excavate 150cm (5 feet) just to get outside! b) He should also have informed us about the additional costs involved.

I wouldn’t have high hopes of receiving any money from the architect either..

Hello,

RamonaMira schrieb:

The architect did point out that the garden is "not completely level," but nothing more.

Which also corresponds to reality, although there is some disagreement about the description "not completely level."

RamonaMira schrieb:

My question: Shouldn't the architect have informed us that a different roof option (lower, e.g., a gable roof) would have been more suitable for the property? Then we could have built higher and had more or less direct level access outside.

Plans, building permit/planning permission, etc. are all correct. But is it reasonable for a layperson to recognize how drastic the situation is in reality?

The crux is that you approved all the plans; therefore, anyone can assume that you are aware of what you consented to—including that you were informed about the existing site elevations. I know this for sure because you signed the building permit/planning permission and later the construction drawings to approve them! Even in the preliminary site plan, you could have seen—even as a layperson—how and at what elevation your house would be built.

RamonaMira schrieb:

Additionally, the architect said that the house with a shed roof would cost "only" 5,000 euros more than with a standard roof. But when you factor in the extremely deep excavation required for the foundation, which otherwise would have been shallower, and the considerable costs for landscaping (overcoming a 1.50m (5 feet) slope toward the rear, 2 meters (6.5 feet) to the left neighbor!!!), we're definitely talking about a significantly higher total cost!!!

Also, we are much lower than the neighbors, which really doesn’t look good.

Did you insist on a shed roof and thereby signal to the architect that no other roof type was acceptable? It is impossible to analyze conversations you were not part of in hindsight; also, “hearing” and “understanding” are not necessarily the same. Surely, the drainage issues due to the house being built lower than street level must have been discussed? That should have raised concerns...

RamonaMira schrieb:

Has anyone had similar experiences? Is it worth involving a lawyer to claim compensation or at least to demand the architect contribute to the landscaping costs?

In such cases, it is usually one statement against the other—with the signed documents still favoring the architect. Whether a lawsuit would be successful can only be determined after consulting a lawyer. From painful personal experience, I have to say that in the end, there is always only one “winner,” and in your case, it most likely won’t be you.

RamonaMira schrieb:

We are completely desperate!

I completely believe you; this will likely turn out to be quite expensive...

Best regards, Bauexperte