A Dickensian Christmas

We thought they'd gone quiet, but Knott came out of the woodwork (sorry!) the other day threatening us with debt collectors.  So, debtors' prison for us over Yuletide, then...

This is our response:

Many thanks for your email of 19 December 2011 regarding the above invoice.

Firstly, you quote from my email of 24 November requesting soft copies of the plans before dealing with the corrected invoice.  My apologies for a badly drafted email written in haste [I'd written that we'd pay the corrected invoice rather than deal with the corrected invoice]; written in haste in part, I may add, due to having to respond within seven days to an invoice that had already spent some days in the post.  Obviously, not having been sent your contractual terms at any point we were unaware of your payment terms.  May I also add that even when the replacement invoice was sent by email it was dated some days previously.

Putting that aside, we still maintain that the correct, i.e. appropriate, payment of the invoice was a partial payment to reflect the fact that you have only partially completed the feasibility stage.  Without wishing to repeat the points in our letter to [Knott] of 1 December the reasons we believe you have yet to complete the feasibility stage are:

      i.        You have failed to meet the brief.  Setting aside the more subjective points in our response to your plans, given that the brief could be summed up as ‘make best use of space and light given the restrictions of the plot’, to present a design including key rooms with no natural light clearly shows that it objectively fails to meet the brief.  Another iteration of the plans was, therefore, we felt appropriate as part of the feasibility stage.

     ii.        When we met [Knott] on 14 October 2011 he agreed to discuss and clarify the council’s response to our pre-application ([Planning Officer's] letter of 10 October) and that any design presented would reflect those discussions.  At the presentation of the outline plan you confirmed that that conversation had not taken place.  If you had it is our belief that some of the most troubling aspects of the design could have been avoided.

We are disappointed that you maintain that you have completed this stage of the design satisfactorily.  We had hoped that you could take a step back and recognise that you had only partially met the brief and that, therefore, a partial payment of your fee is appropriate.  Unless we hear from you by 2 January 2012 that you are happy to draw a line under this we will look to raise this as a complaint/dispute with RIBA and/or the ARB, as appropriate.

Yours sincerely...

Fighting talk!

Not a very good site diary, is it?

Haven't thought of a decent pseudonym, so our new architectural designer will just have to stay as the Architectural Designer.  If things don't go as badly tits up as they have with Knott then he'll get his credit at the end.  If there ever is an end.

But, several days after it happened, have to report a decent meeting with him.  He didn't laugh when we showed him our pans and cardboard model.  He thought some degree of iteration of the plans until the client is happy was standard practice.  He's happy to QA and improve upon our basic design, and didn't try the 'you mere mortals couldn't possibly even attempt what we do' line.  He's even sent through written terms, which Knott never did.  All for £3,500, which would have been a couple of redrawings from Knott's minions.

The only slightly shaky moment was when he showed us his portfolio including something Georgian that "wasn't a pastiche".  The only conclusion that we can draw is that he has a time machine...

Doing what I shouldn't have to do any more...

Yes, back designing houses, drawing plans, even building another model, this time using wooden blocks to give it structure (which of my children's playthings can I steal to use next?).  All the things that I shouldn't have to do having employed an architect...

We have a meeting with the other architectural designer and, rather than give him a blank sheet we want him to QA, improve upon, and draw properly, our scheme.  He may, very professionally, talk us out of that route, or even walk away.  We're prepared to buy him a coffee, though, down the pub, if that helps secure his services.

Meanwhile, on the knotty Knott issue, here's our self-explanatory and, we hope, business-like letter to him, CAD files having arrived:

We are writing in relation to the above invoice, dated 25 November 2011, though only emailed on 28 November.  Having considered the outputs of our meeting of 16 November 2011 we feel it appropriate to only pay half of this invoice for the following reasons:

 I.        When we met on 14 October 2011 we clarified the deliverables of each stage.  Our understanding was that the output of the first stage of the process would be a design that would meet the client’s brief to the client’s satisfaction.  We therefore assumed that it would therefore allow for some appropriate degree of iteration.

We have already written expressing our disappointment at how the proposed design fails to meet our specification, in particular ‘making best use of light and space’ given virtually no glazing on the southern elevation.  Therefore we feel that for you to unilaterally decide that this phase has been completed satisfactorily is inappropriate.  As consultants in different fields it would be unheard of in our professions to sign off work without allowing clients to input into the deliverables of each stage.

 II.        Secondly, when we met on 14 October, you undertook to discuss the council’s response to our pre-application (XX’s letter of 10 October) and that the design you would present would reflect that discussion.  At the presentation XX confirmed that this had not been done.  If you had it is our belief that some of the most troubling aspects of the design, the ability to let natural light into the heart of the house in particular, could have been avoided.

Please find enclosed a cheque for £1827.

Yours sincerely,