Listening to your client even when they are wrong

[jar546]

I am asking a simple question that may not have a simple answer. I have been seeing this for years, time after time, after time and it never ceases to make ask the question "why?"

When you are a registered design professional such as an architect or engineer, what compels you to listen to your client and submit something that you know is NOT code compliant?

 

[cda]

Not on that side
But

As long as you tell them it will not pass,

They are signing the paycheck

 

[RLGA]

A design professional that knowingly designs contrary to the code is negligent, and professional liability insurers frown upon that, thus increasing premiums for policy holders who follow such practices. Also, state licensing boards also frown upon that, which could lead the design professional to lose their license to practice.

Since I don’t design, but advise, I tell my clients (architects, primarily) when the design doesn’t comply—they are now on notice. If they don’t change it, they cannot come back to me for a claim if the violation leads to a problem down the road.

If an owner is directing the violation, then I would first notify the owner, either verbally or written, that it is a violation and that I would not do so. If the owner insists, then I would put it in writing and seek the advice of an attorney, because it could be a means of contract termination for cause (on the owner’s part).

 

[advshopfront]

You have to respect the taste and desire of your client. So, you have to provide them with the details they ask for without having your opinion into consideration.

 

[tmurray]

We are fairly understanding when this type of thing happens. Many times we get calls from contractors or designers in advance advising us that they notified the owner that what they wanted violated the code and they were directed to do it anyway. We've had contractors in the field call us and ask us to stop by to order them to do what they know is right, but the owner has made them do wrong.

Our feeling is to respect the fact that these people are just trying to keep food on their table and to allow them to continue working with us quietly. The alternative is to push owners towards less ethical professionals who will not tell us when the owner has overruled the code requirements.

The other side is understanding that the owner has been allowed to make thousands of choices up to this point. Now, the choice they want is not possible. It can be challenging for them to understand that. We had a situation here where two lawyers were having a home constructed and did not want a handrail on stairs because it "ruined the look". I had noted the missing handrail as a deficiency and I ended up speaking directly to the owners about the issue. The discussion was essentially me telling them that they didn't have a choice and there was not going to be any negotiation on the issue.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I have asked for code modifications from time to time, and usually provided good enough backup to get them approved. There is no sense submitting something that doesn't meet code because (1) it ain't right, (2) a plans examiner will catch it, and (3) even if the plans examiner and field inspector(s) miss it, if somebody gets hurt because of what didn't meet code the A/E would get sued and possibly lose his (or her) license.

 

[ADAguy]

an age old issue that won't go away.

 

[linnrg]

well all of the flippers on those TV shows seem to get away with it all of the time! No handrails not a problem! No guard rails not a problem! No proper outlet spacing in those fancy kitchens no a problem! Does anyone ever inspect those things?

 

[north star]

$ * $

" well all of the flippers on those TV shows seem to get away with
it all of the time! No handrails not a problem! No guard rails not a
problem! No proper outlet spacing in those fancy kitchens no a problem!
Does anyone ever inspect those things? "

That %$^*&@# on t.v. is scripted to sell, not be factual.......Even "This Old House"
gets it wrong regularly.

$ * $

 

[linnrg]

$ * $
That %$^*&@# on t.v. is scripted to sell, not be factual.......Even "This Old House"
gets it wrong regularly.

$ * $

Took the words right out of me!!!!! But man you really need spellchek

 

[jar546]

I believe that it is inappropriate for a design professional to submit drawings that he/she know are non-compliant just to pacify a client. Since when does keeping your client happy or pacified overrule ethics?
Why would an RDP risk her/his reputation? Why would they blatantly overt from a standard of practice?

I understand to a degree when an RDP does this and gives the code official heads up but in all honesty, it just shows to the code official/plans examiner that the RDP is weak or hurting for business as they are openly violating their own standards and ethics.

What happens when intentionally designed, non-compliant plans get approved by a weak plans examiner or building department? Now the woman/man with the seal on the plans is taking on a lot of responsibility and what would he/she say under oath?

Sometimes in life you have to take a stand, take responsibility and if that means you get a client that walks away then so be it. Grow a pair.

 

[Mark K]

A design professional is constrained by the need to respect and accommodate the wishes of the client, the need to limit the liability of the design professional, the need to protect the design professionals personal and business interests, and the need to comply with the law. Some times these constraints are in conflict. The design professional should always draw the line at a clear cut violation of the laws but it gets more subjective when things are not so clear cut.

I do not like the term ethics because in many instances what is characterized as an ethical issue is very subjective. In addition the claim of ethics is often used to compel somebody else to act the way the individual believes they should much like the way some individuals invoke a holy book.

When the Owner directs the contractor to do something not in compliant with the code we need to recognize that it is the Owner's responsibility to provide a code compliant building, not the contractor's. Any obligation the contractor has to comply with the code flows from the owner contractor's agreement and the laws of negligence. The contractor may decide not to do something that is too risky but if that was in the construction documents that they agreed to follow the contractor may need a good lawyer.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

well all of the flippers on those TV shows seem to get away with it all of the time! No handrails not a problem! No guard rails not a problem! No proper outlet spacing in those fancy kitchens no a problem! Does anyone ever inspect those things?

In PA you could do this in a house without a permit in most towns . So no inspections. I know some states there are no codes.

 

[ADAguy]

Too true.

 

[jar546]

You “please“ your clients by showing them how ethical you are, how professional you are and by being honest with them when they want things done that are not code compliant.

 

[Jay]

I am going through this presently with a commercial project. Client asked for an additional bathroom on a first floor level. He wants a small bathroom that does is not accessible. We meet the plumbing fixture requirements with the primary bathrooms on the first floor. This is an additional "convenience" bath for workers only.

I stated to client multiple times that a non accessible bathroom is not allowed. We are not within a private office nor meet any other exceptions. He asked me multiple times to included it anyway knowing full well that I advised against it. A situation like this, to me, is not a life threatening or safety issue. So I drew it the way he wanted, with the caveat that I did not approve. We will see what happens. I have the fixtures situated so that if we are required to make the room accessible, the fixtures can stay exactly where they are and a couple walls will be relocated to the adjacent open space, where there is plenty of room.

 

[jar546]

I am going through this presently with a commercial project. Client asked for an additional bathroom on a first floor level. He wants a small bathroom that does is not accessible. We meet the plumbing fixture requirements with the primary bathrooms on the first floor. This is an additional "convenience" bath for workers only.

I stated to client multiple times that a non accessible bathroom is not allowed. We are not within a private office nor meet any other exceptions. He asked me multiple times to included it anyway knowing full well that I advised against it. A situation like this, to me, is not a life threatening or safety issue. So I drew it the way he wanted, with the caveat that I did not approve. We will see what happens. I have the fixtures situated so that if we are required to make the room accessible, the fixtures can stay exactly where they are and a couple walls will be relocated to the adjacent open space, where there is plenty of room.

And if it gets by plan review because they are busy and miss it, you are OK with that because it is not life safety and none of his workers will ever need an accessible bathroom or they can go to the public one if they need to?

 

[Jay]

This bath is for delivery drivers at the back of the building who might need a quick pit stop. It is highly unlikely those guys will need an accessible bathroom but if they do there is one available not too far away, so yea I am ok with it.

 

[jar546]

This bath is for delivery drivers at the back of the building who might need a quick pit stop. It is highly unlikely those guys will need an accessible bathroom but if they do there is one available not too far away, so yea I am ok with it.

So it is OK to design below code minimums as long as you can transfer the liability to the plan reviewer?
Why not give the plans examiner a heads up as to why you are submitting something below minimum standards?

 

[Jay]

Good idea. I can do that at my pregame meeting with plan reviewer next week. Appreciate your perspective.

 

[Mark K]

First you cannot transfer the liability to the reviewer and the building official because they have none and cannot legally authorize anything not in compliant with the code. In some cases they can make a creative interpretation of the code but that only goes so far.

It is well established that issuance of a building permit is not considered a statement that you have a code compliant building.

You might try to invoke IBC sections 104.10 and 104.11 but given that the ADA requirements are ultimately a federal requirement these sections may not be available.

There are inevitably situations where the reviewer did not or chose not to see a code violation but while that may allow you to build the project in violation of the code the project would still be in violation of the code. Raising the issue with the plan checker does not allow him to ignore it.

Designing to minimize the cost of later making the building code compliant will minimize you liability if the violation is later identified. On the other hand any record that the design professional knew that the construction documents were non compliant would be evidence of negligence per say which means you are automatically guilty and will need to pay.

You should probably consult with an attorney.

 

[jar546]

First you cannot transfer the liability to the reviewer and the building official because they have none and cannot legally authorize anything not in compliant with the code. In some cases they can make a creative interpretation of the code but that only goes so far.

No liability? Based on what? I can tell you with 100% certainty that they do and there are court cases to prove it. Maybe hearsay but not in real life.

Designing to minimize the cost of later making the building code compliant will minimize you liability if the violation is later identified. On the other hand any record that the design professional knew that the construction documents were non compliant would be evidence of negligence per say which means you are automatically guilty and will need to pay.
You should probably consult with an attorney.

Now this I can agree with.

 

[Jay]

Follow up......Met with Building official today to show him how preliminary designs were shaping up and ask if he saw any major "red flags". In particular, I pointed out the pending design for the non-accessible bath. He says it is not allowed and needs to be accessible. He also mentioned the possibility of moving it over towards the other group of bathrooms, so they were all accessed from the same hallway, that it could remain as a non accessible unisex bath with certain provisions. I will most likely enlarge the room so that it is accessible and call it a day.

Appreciate the input I have received here.

 

[jar546]

Follow up......Met with Building official today to show him how preliminary designs were shaping up and ask if he saw any major "red flags". In particular, I pointed out the pending design for the non-accessible bath. He says it is not allowed and needs to be accessible. He also mentioned the possibility of moving it over towards the other group of bathrooms, so they were all accessed from the same hallway, that it could remain as a non accessible unisex bath with certain provisions. I will most likely enlarge the room so that it is accessible and call it a day.

Appreciate the input I have received here.

And I appreciate your honesty and respect your decision (who am I anyway ) so thank you. We have used the grouping method before and it can work under the right circumstances.