Architect - taken 12 months to get extension agreed

Doozergirl

That first quote is really pretty cheap for what is on it. Regardless, if that what was quoted, it was quoted.

lucylou32

MisterBaxter wrote: »

If you told him that you wanted him to take you right through to a builder starting then he should have priced for, and done the work necessary to get you to that point. The only thing I could see him coming back for extra costs on is the build-over agreement with the water authority as that would more than likely have been an unknown at the time of pricing. He hasn't delivered the services discussed so don't pay him. I WAS SURPRISED WHEN HE SAID IN AUGUST SOUTHERN WATER WANTED £900 FOR THE BUILD OVER, SURELY HE'D HAVE COME ACCROSS THE NEED FOR A BUILD OVER BEFORE?

As for the other works that were requested and that you have decided not to proceed with. If he hasn't done any work on it at all then I wouldn't expect to have to pay. If he did some abortive work then he should be able to provide you with details of the work that was actually done and put his fee proposal forward for that abortive work. If you are holding back payments then payments for the works associated with the works that haven't been done should be held back as well. WE TOLD HIM THE HOUSE DESIGN WAS NOT NEEDED, THE SAME DAY WE APPOINTED HIM. IT GOT PAID FOR ANYWAY, AS WE FORGOT TO ASK FOR A REVISED INVOICE BEFORE PAYING. AND THE BUILDER OFFERED TO REDESIGN THE DRIVEWAY AT NO EXTRA COST, SO OWEN DIDNT DO THAT EITHER.

It is very difficult to give you constructive advice this late on in the process as you have gone so far in to the project with this person and you may have to just see the rest of the job through until you are ready to hand to a builder who will hopefully provide you with a better experience. THATS WHAT WE'RE THINKING OUR BUILDER IS AWESOME THANK GOODNESS. HES BEEN INCREDIBLY PATIENT !

If you are going to hold back on payments put in writing and state you exact reasons for withholding money; if he did decide to pursue the matter through the Courts there would at least be some evidence along with your emails to him informing him of your dissatisfaction.

At some point you will have to agree some form of payment as he has done some of the work, albeit in a less than satisfactory manner; how you arrive at a figure is going to be down to a degree of negotiation but make sure you take account of any actual losses you have suffered as a result. FIRST INVOICE WAS PAID IN FULL AND INCLUDED SERVICES NOT CARRIED OUT

Your expectations at the outset may have been unrealistic but again that is something that should have been explained to you and was part of his job to do; you are a layperson, he is purporting to be a professional.

Yes, that would have been nice, especially since we kept asking him how long we could be expected to wait and what was left to do...

lucylou32

the_r_sole wrote: »

I don't understand why you would let him proceed if the design didn't meet your requirements? - Are you intending on building something that doesn't suit you just to do it quickly?
.. That's exactly why we accepted it, he took 3weeks for each design and we needed the builder to start asap, to get the extension completed by October, so our daughter would have somewhere to sleep. At the moment, she now has to sleep in bed with me and my husband sleeps on the sofa

His job was to design to your brief - you should have stopped his services at this point as it clearly wasn't working, sometimes the initial design stage can take a while to get just right, but you don't proceed until you have something that meets the brief (and/or the budget)

Also why did it take two months to pay the invoice? - Indications here are that the relationship was on a downward course already
...... The invoice was produced in January, when we were asking for quotes, he was appointed in February and we paid in April, days after agreeing to accept the 2nd design. It never occurred to us, to pay prior to seeing the design, and he never chased for the payment.

Just as an aside - building control drawings are never complete at the initial submission, the local authority will always find something that requires clarification.

Retrospectively, we do of course agree, we should have used someone else, but we had no idea during those first few months, that someone else would operate differently.

lucylou32

Doozergirl wrote: »

If it were me, I'd write, disengaging him.

Refer to your previous emails and tell him you have run out of patience.

Tell him you will not be paying for services that should take an architect a matter of weeks to produce correctly first time, not months to produce with errors and omissions.

He has also already been paid for services not rendered and so you feel that he still owes you for that, or that agreement should least have been made for the payment on account to go towards something else.

And also tell him that you were absolutely of the impression that he was a qualified architect and feel utterly misled.

Then engage someone to deal
With things in a timely manner leave it with him.

If you end up in small claims with him, I think you should counter claim for the other work not received. Although stressful, I'd feel quite comfortable that this person has failed you.

Anyone of worth would have this dealt with and the walls up by now! I wouldn't have the gall to go to small claims if I were him.

Thank you, I think this is exactly what I'm going to do

System

lucylou32 wrote: »

Thank you, I think this is exactly what I'm going to do

the biggest problem you will have is finding someone willing to take on a half done job by someone that appears to be not entirely competent

MisterBaxter

the_r_sole wrote: »

the biggest problem you will have is finding someone willing to take on a half done job by someone that appears to be not entirely competent

You're right, although as this has only got as far as Planning and Building Regs it is probably salvageable without a great deal of additional work provided the client didn't want to change things back to what they had originally requested but didn't get. If they did want to go back then it's the same as starting over. A builder would probably pick it up and run with it, I'm sure many builders have commenced work with less information. In any job it is always difficult picking up where someone else left off.

@lucylou32 - when you say £900 for the build over agreement; is that his fee or is that a payment to the water authority? It may not have been obvious to him when he first priced the job that an agreement would be needed, he would (should) have picked it up once he started survey work; it would involve some additional work on his part but not vast amounts. Looking at the SWW website the application should have taken 10mins and their fee is £948 so I am hoping the charge he made was just the payment to SWW and that he hasn't charged you £900 plus the £948.

One other point, did he ever say he was an Architect or was it just that he listed 'Architectural Services' as a category of work on the website you found him on? It's possibly semantics but you could provide 'Architectural Services' without being an 'Architect' as you are saying you provide those services often associated with the work of an Architect, you are not saying that 'I am an Architect'. None of that changes that he failed to meet the expectations that you as a client would reasonably have of him.

I think Doozergirl has said it all really. He would have a tough time in Court as he hasn't met the obligations that it would be reasonable to expect of him and the Court will nearly always favour the layperson as they expect the expert to guide the layperson, after all that is the reason for employing an expert.

Furts

MisterBaxter wrote: »

You're right, although as this has only got as far as Planning and Building Regs it is probably salvageable without a great deal of additional work provided the client didn't want to change things back to what they had originally requested but didn't get. If they did want to go back then it's the same as starting over. A builder would probably pick it up and run with it, I'm sure many builders have commenced work with less information. In any job it is always difficult picking up where someone else left off.

@lucylou32 - when you say £900 for the build over agreement; is that his fee or is that a payment to the water authority? It may not have been obvious to him when he first priced the job that an agreement would be needed, he would (should) have picked it up once he started survey work; it would involve some additional work on his part but not vast amounts. Looking at the SWW website the application should have taken 10mins and their fee is £948 so I am hoping the charge he made was just the payment to SWW and that he hasn't charged you £900 plus the £948.

One other point, did he ever say he was an Architect or was it just that he listed 'Architectural Services' as a category of work on the website you found him on? It's possibly semantics but you could provide 'Architectural Services' without being an 'Architect' as you are saying you provide those services often associated with the work of an Architect, you are not saying that 'I am an Architect'. None of that changes that he failed to meet the expectations that you as a client would reasonably have of him.

I think Doozergirl has said it all really. He would have a tough time in Court as he hasn't met the obligations that it would be reasonable to expect of him and the Court will nearly always favour the layperson as they expect the expert to guide the layperson, after all that is the reason for employing an expert.

Following the 27 posts I become more confused regarding exactly what brief OP gave to the designer and at what time. It also appears payment has not been rapid, and the work involved in seeking Buildings Regulations have never been paid for. Added to this I do not know if OP has achieved Buildings Regulations for the scheme.

The original timescsale was ambitious, probably too ambitious by far, and appears to have encompassed multiple briefs that bore no resemblance to each other. Added to this it appears the designer had not been instructed to apply for Buildings Regulations. We still do not know if a CCTV survey was undertaken, nor a measured survey, nor even basic levelling.

There have been wise words posted in responses but my gut instinct is not positive over the entire situation. I sense too much fire is being directed at the designer who has not got the opportunity to put across his side of the story.

The time frame has now gone on too long - perhaps OP should step back and work out how to calm the troubled waters.

MisterBaxter

Furts wrote: »

..............................There have been wise words posted in responses but my gut instinct is not positive over the entire situation. I sense too much fire is being directed at the designer who has not got the opportunity to put across his side of the story........

Prima Facie the 'Professional' is deserving of the criticism. When dealing with a layperson the professional should have taken the lead in the project. They should have clearly set out the project stages, the services they were providing, the services they weren't providing, the costs for the services being provided and any exclusions or works that would attract extra charges. The professional is there to hold the hand of the layperson through the project; if they felt that the timetable was unrealistic then they had a responsibility to say so; if they felt the project was unattainable or that the budget was unrealistic they should have said so at the outset.

The layperson should be able to tell the professional what outcome they are aiming to achieve and the professional should be able to set out how they will achieve that outcome and at what cost. If the client doesn't have a clear brief then it is up to the professional to work with the client to develop the brief based on their desired outcomes and then get that brief agreed.

Managing the client is as much a part of the job as managing the technical elements of the project. Most clients know what the 'IT' that they want is but many don't know how to get there and it is unrealistic to place the responsibility for the brief on them.

The fact that the OP is confused about what they thought they were getting, what they actually got, the time it has taken to get to where they are and that costs are not clear all point to the professional having not done their job properly. Clients may not always like what they are being told when it comes to timescales and costs but they should be kept informed on such issues.

lush_walrus

lucylou32 wrote: »

Pls see a few comments above, to your questions

If they say they are Architects and not on Arbs lists then they are lying. Report them to ARB and they will be subject to a fine. You are paying for someone who is not formally educated in the form they are pretending to be. People who say you do not require an Architect are quite incorrect, as proven by your experience here.

lucylou32

MisterBaxter wrote: »

Prima Facie the 'Professional' is deserving of the criticism. When dealing with a layperson the professional should have taken the lead in the project. They should have clearly set out the project stages, the services they were providing, the services they weren't providing, the costs for the services being provided and any exclusions or works that would attract extra charges. The professional is there to hold the hand of the layperson through the project; if they felt that the timetable was unrealistic then they had a responsibility to say so; if they felt the project was unattainable or that the budget was unrealistic they should have said so at the outset.

The layperson should be able to tell the professional what outcome they are aiming to achieve and the professional should be able to set out how they will achieve that outcome and at what cost. If the client doesn't have a clear brief then it is up to the professional to work with the client to develop the brief based on their desired outcomes and then get that brief agreed.

Managing the client is as much a part of the job as managing the technical elements of the project. Most clients know what the 'IT' that they want is but many don't know how to get there and it is unrealistic to place the responsibility for the brief on them.

The fact that the OP is confused about what they thought they were getting, what they actually got, the time it has taken to get to where they are and that costs are not clear all point to the professional having not done their job properly. Clients may not always like what they are being told when it comes to timescales and costs but they should be kept informed on such issues.

You have hit the nail on the head here. I personally work in finance, if I'm advising a client I will write a step by step guide on what they've asked for and what I recommend they do to achieve it, I have to do this for compliance reasons, but also, it's great to refer back to for both parities. This is the document I have been asking Owen for, for the last 10 months. He never supplied anything, which I have no doubt means my expectations (which I feel I make clear in our initial meeting in January and repeatedly in emails over the future months) would prove to be way out and surprises would appear, it's a horrid feeling, to be kept so in the dark especially when I have other concerns as well (my daughter being born with a physical disability in September) my poor builder has been waiting patiently in the shadows, taking on minor jobs whilst waiting the go ahead. He also can't understand the delay which has added to my confusion.