In the particulars of claim, Caroline Spurrier alleges that a departure from a specification for copper hot and cold-water pipes, together with alleged installation and supervision failures, caused leaks discovered years later.
The dispute concerns renovations carried out between August 2005 and August 2007 at Crow’s Hall. The Grade II*-listed red-brick manor house in Debenham, Suffolk, is believed to have been the home of 18th-century British prime minister William Pitt the Elder, and is now a wedding venue.
Legal documents filed by Spurrier in the High Court say she hired defendant Nicholas Jacob trading as Nicholas Jacob Architects (though currently trading as NJ Architects) in 2005 to be the project’s architect. The building works were carried out under a JCT Minor Works contract by Suffolk-based heritage contractor R & J Hogg.
Although the claim doesn’t detail the full scope of the works, NJ Architect’s website says it ‘prepared and managed’ an ‘extensive repair schedule on the house’, including the re-roofing of the north range and the removal of some late 20th-century additions. It says the project received awards for craftsmanship from the Suffolk Association of Architects.
In 2021, 14 years after the project was completed, Spurrier called a specialist contractor after the water pressure in the house’s central heating dropped. The contractor told her the problem was ‘likely’ caused by a leak.
But the following year, Spurrier says, the reason for the pressure loss was discovered to be a leaking plastic pipe joint under the entrance hall. She says the failed pipe had been ‘set in concrete screed without any ducting and the concrete had disintegrated’.
Spurrier alleges that the architect had agreed to change the specification for the hot and cold water supply pipes from copper to Hep2O plastic pipework without telling her.
‘Plastic pipework is more prone to damage by vermin and to becoming brittle and more subject to thermal movements such as heat loss or gain than copper pipework,’ she says in the claim.
Another ‘significant leak’ in 2023 prompted Spurrier to investigate whether the works had been signed off by building control.
She says that Mid-Suffolk District Council confirmed that matters raised during an inspection with the project architect in October 2007 ‘had not been dealt with’ and problems with the operation of the heating and hot water system and leaks ‘required further attention’.
The claim alleges that the works had not received building-control approval and that matters raised at the final inspection remained unresolved.
Spurrier claims that NJ Architects was negligent and in breach of contract for allegedly passing the responsibility for the design, installation and specification ‘of an important issue such as the plumbing and heating system’ to a ‘general building contractor’.
She says that the architect should have subcontracted the plumbing and heating system project to a heating engineer ‘if he felt that he was not capable of dealing with it’.
Spurrier also alleges that the architect didn’t notice that historic wooden flooring was replaced with ‘cheaper’ chipboard or that the beams were spliced to install the plastic heating piping.
The claim also includes the allegation that the defendant had failed ‘to make any visits to site to inspect the pipework or, having made such visits, failing to notice during inspection of the works that pipework set in concrete screed was not being or had not been installed in proprietary screed ducts’.
Spurrier is seeking at least £400,788.95, comprising a schedule of past and projected repair costs, as well as further unquantified losses. She adds that the repairs required will impact her financially because she uses her home as a wedding venue, which the Crow’s Hall website says is available for private events from £18,000.
A High Court judge transferred the claim in April to the Central London County Court, a specialised civil court dealing with housing and money disputes.
Spurrier told the AJ she was unable to make a statement during the ongoing litigation.
NJ Architects said: ‘We intend to respond to the allegations through the appropriate procedures and will not be commenting further while those procedures are ongoing.’
R&J Hogg has been contacted for comment. No defence has yet been filed by the defendant.