Administrators for ISG Construction are chasing an architectural practice for £7.8m over delays to a project completed in 2022.
The contractor claims that W Griffiths Architects failed to properly to carry out its obligations as an architectural consultant on a delay-hit job it worked on in High Street, Watford.
The project, for housing association the Home Group, saw the construction of two apartment blocks consisting of 56 flats above a ground-floor retail unit, built with a timber frame.
Overall, work was delayed by three-and-a-half years, with ISG alleging that just over two years of the delay was caused by W Griffiths breaching its subconsultancy agreement and/or negligence, mostly in relation to fire safety issues.
Work started in 2014 but ran into significant issues in 2018 and 2019 after concerns were identified over work carried out by subcontractor Grays Dry Lining.
A remediation plan was put in place, but the subcontractor went into administration in 2021 before it could carry out the work.
According to a claim lodged by ISG prior to its administration and seen by Construction News, an adjudicator found in February 2022 that W Griffiths breached its subconsultancy agreement on issues including failing to provide a fire strategy and the specification of the plasterboard and drylining.
According to ISG, the adjudicator also found W Griffiths failed to provide adequate detailing for drylining and fireboard, and failed to specify fire barriers were in correct locations or that fire escapes met minimum width requirements.
W Griffiths disputes that the adjudication outcome was as the contractor described.
Issues also arose due to Knauf UK plasterboard being installed instead of the British Gypsum products required by the Home Group, according to the claim.
ISG also claimed that when asked for data to support the adequacy of the plasterboard installed so it could persuade the client that full replacement was not needed but that the architects refused to supply it.
The contractor said W Griffiths should have proactively identified design problems on the project and coordinated solutions to them.
ISG started the legal action against W Griffiths in 2022 and outlined its case in 2023. It has been continued since the contractor’s administration in September 2024.
W Griffiths rejects the accusations, denying it was responsible for any of the delays and has issued a counter-claim for £202,345, plus VAT, for extra hours worked on the project that it said were the fault of ISG.
Its first defence, lodged in August 2024, said Grays Dry Lining’s “shockingly poor workmanship” had “entirely failed” to follow the architects’ “clear design intent and the manufacturer’s instructions and British Standards”.
It added that ISG failed to properly manage the project as it was meant to. “Most heinous is ISG’s failure to inspect the works when in progress, as it was obliged to do, and its failure to identify on that basis [Grays Dry Lining’s] systemic failures at an early stage,” it said.
ISG also took “an unreasonably protracted period of time” to agree the scope of the remedial works, it added.
The company said it spent time dealing with unnecessary requests from ISG management it had already answered, a situation made worse by “the constant churn of management level employees” at the contractor.
The case was a “cynical attempt” by ISG to recoup its losses made on the project, the architects said.
W Griffiths added that mechanical and electrical subconsultants and subcontractors were also responsible for delays on the project.
The architects’ defence said it was “absurd” to suggest there was a requirement to have a single document called a “fire strategy” that would have been able to identify all the issues arising during construction.
Referring to the process in which ISG was due to be bought out by a new owner at the time, the defence asserted the sale “is testament to the chaos and lost market confidence in which ISG has been running for some time”.
The process fell through weeks later and the contractor went into administration.
Administrators for the company have continued the legal action with their lawyers submitting a document in August that repeatedly said W Griffiths failed to fulfil its responsibilities on the project.
These include scrutinising the client’s and contractor’s proposals to check for conflicts and failing to provide a comprehensive set of details for the drylining package before it went out to tender.
ISG’s representatives said they remained unclear on how the structural timber frame would have been fire protected and compliant with Building Regulation Part B3.
Part B3 requires loadbearing elements of building structures to be capable of withstanding the effects of fire for an “appropriate period” without loss of stability.
The response cites RIBA’s Plan of Work 2020 as evidence that a fire safety strategy is an integral part of the design and must be integrated into design and asset management stages.
“These requirements are not new although they have been given greater salience by the Grenfell tragedy and the Grenfell report,” ISG’s response added.
The case is one of a number of legal disputes relating to ISG that remain ongoing.
Earlier this month, CN revealed administrators were pursuing AtkinsRéalis and Longworth Building Services for £4m over an allegedly defective roof on a school in Bury, Greater Manchester.
Elsewhere, more than two-thirds of former ISG staff are involved in legal action over the way they were made redundant, while six subcontractors have threatened a claim against the Ministry of Justice over unpaid money from ISG prison projects that were meant to be covered by project bank accounts.