Certifying Completion Under Commercial Pressure

The central issue is not the unpaid fee but the truth of the certificate. A practical completion certificate is a professional representation that the works are complete except for minor defects and that they are safe and usable for their intended purpose. Six safety-critical defects - an incomplete fire pump room, uncommissioned stair pressurisation and missing handrails - mean the building does not meet that standard. Signing would mislead the developer, buyers and the local authority, and would expose the architect to negligence claims and disciplinary action. Fee pressure and the threat of replacement are commercial matters; they do not change the factual position. The contractor's paid 'design review' offer is a conflict of interest because it could influence the architect's judgement on the same project. Under the SLIA code, the architect must put public safety and integrity first, avoid conflicts, and not certify work that has not been properly inspected or tested. The correct course is to refuse the certificate, set out the defects in writing, and offer an interim certificate or a snag list with a clear path to completion.

In sequence: (1) issue a written notice to the developer and contractor listing the 27 items, separating safety-critical items from cosmetic snags, and state that practical completion is not achieved; (2) require commissioning certificates for the fire pump and pressurisation system, and a handrail inspection; (3) if the contract permits, certify completed sections or issue an interim payment certificate for work done, so the fee dispute is dealt with separately; (4) decline the contractor's offer in writing, citing conflict of interest; (5) keep a dated site diary, photographs and copies of instructions; (6) tell the developer that replacing the architect does not make the building compliant and offer a handover file. If replaced, hand over records promptly and refuse any request to sign a retrospective certificate. The reasoning is that the architect's duty is to the truth of the record and to public safety, not to the developer's handover date. A clear paper trail also protects the architect if the developer later alleges delay or loss.

If the architect signs, the likely consequences are: (a) civil liability to the developer and to buyers who rely on the certificate, especially if a fire or injury occurs; (b) disciplinary proceedings before SLIA for false certification and conflict of interest; (c) possible invalidation of professional indemnity cover if the act was dishonest or reckless; (d) reputational damage and loss of the client. The architect should also consider that the local authority may rely on the certificate when issuing the Certificate of Conformity. The defence 'the client pressured me' is weak because the architect is the independent professional. The better course is to record the refusal and the reasons contemporaneously. If the developer appoints another architect, that architect must make their own inspection and cannot rely on the first architect's unverified records.