How angry I sound now is not how I sounded with him throughout the project. I never complained or said blantly at him that you suck at this. I just said this was not to my pleasing(is this more matureeee now?) I was beyond patient with him.
It was because of my patience and my sympathy that it led him to act like this. He lies a lot and it was because of him throughout the project he kept saying everything is good and good and I listened. He kept promising we are almost done and then we are almost done he was like oh I'm going on vacation or I don't have time. Do you know how annoying that is???? Don't think of it as a architects point of view, think of it as a homeowner. If I didn't listen to him this project would have finished much sooner because when I took action everything was finished and now it's almost finish he tries to throw a roadblock at me by asking for more money.
^ It is impossible for any of us to really give advice or even a professional opinion, since we are only getting one side of the story. Certainly, the time line for a small project like this does seem much too long. The problems with permitting, engineers, zoning etc. are hard to explain as well. It could be that the agencies really did blindside him, or it could be that he screwed up and/or that you don't understand what really happened. Communications have obviously broken down. I suggest talking to somebody else with more qualifications about where you are and how to get back on track.
Your experience is unfortunate. Is this "designer" a licensed architect? If so there are a number of things in your story that may constitute professional misconduct in California (depending on the other side of the story, of course). You can file a complaint with the architects board. It will not get you back your time or money, but it may get him warned, fined, or even result in revocation of his license - any of which may prevent him from repeating this behavior in the future. It will also be in publicly searchable records so that future potential clients can find this information before they get as far into a bad situation.
If he's not licensed then you don't have much recourse - in fact he'd most likely win if he took you to small claims court right now for the $1000 you're still holding out on the original contract. He has provided the drawings. The fact that you don't like them doesn't mean you don't have to pay him. You should have terminated the contract once you were finding that you did not like his work - not kept having him revise it, because now you have to pay for that work even though you still don't like it. Also you said yourself that there are no written records from all of the meetings and discussions in which changes were requested - so you've got no proof that the didn't do what was agreed to.
^ licensure has little bearing on liability...liability is about damages and breach of contract. If you cannot prove damages, and/or cannot prove breach of contract you have no recourse. The Judge may use discretion and treat a licensee more harshly, like a veterinarian being charged with animal cruelty, but anyone can be held liable.
I agree with you. I wasn't saying that he'd have any recourse in court with either an architect or unlicensed person. He wouldn't - he'd lose either way - it's not an issue of liability - he owes for services rendered. My point is that some of the OP's claims, if true, are specific violations of CAB's regulations - particularly with regard to what must be included in a contract for architectural services, and what must happen in order to document changes. He has a valid action with the licensing board, if everything he's saying is true, and if the "designer" is actually an architect.
^ The monies involved don't justify any kind of lawsuit. He should just try to figure out if the situation is salvagable or if he needs to start over. The guy is undoubtedly not licensed--just some little "designer" type working out of his spare bedroom. You get what you pay for.
Feb 4, 16 8:57 pm ·
·
Inhellwiththisarchitect,
We can't help you much. We are only seeing your side of the story. We can't change the situation for you. Word of advice, have a written and signed contract. I don't know if you do but it sounds like the under the table verbal contracts.
I see a lot of problems in this and lack of record keeping leaves little more than one side's conjecture vs. another. In civil court, I would imagine that the calm, collective and coherent will usually win the argument over that of a ranting mad person.
Feb 4, 16 9:16 pm ·
·
geezertect wrote:
^ The monies involved don't justify any kind of lawsuit. He should just try to figure out if the situation is salvagable or if he needs to start over. The guy is undoubtedly not licensed--just some little "designer" type working out of his spare bedroom. You get what you pay for.
I agree. I can't imagine any architect would be this bad and horrible.
If the person is NCBDC certified or a member of the AIBD, there is a possibility of filing a complaint through AIBD or the NCBDC council. I doubt this person is even an AIBD member or NCBDC certified because the professionals I know who are would not be the kind of people who would do this. Then all I have to see on this subject is the OP's.
From my point of view, it would be of AIBD/NCBDC's interest when a member/certified member is conducting themselves in this manner.
i'm wondering if this post wasn't just a test based on what I'm starting to see as formula to make long threads in the forum.....licensed vs unlicensed, lay person vs pros, and then expert googlers and wikipediars qouting shit they don't understand.
I don't think anybody's suggesting the OP file a lawsuit. If a lawsuit happens it would most likely be the designer taking the OP to small claims court for the $1000 he's holding hostage - and the designer will win that - they always do.
Olaf I've wondered if it's just a bait thread too - but the details are a little too weird and specific.
I don't think anybody's suggesting the OP file a lawsuit. If a lawsuit happens it would most likely be the designer taking the OP to small claims court for the $1000 he's holding hostage - and the designer will win that - they always do.
Olaf I've wondered if it's just a bait thread too - but the details are a little too weird and specific.
Sponty....
Not always the case but this would likely be one of those cases.
Feb 5, 16 3:44 am ·
·
There is a chance also that neither of them is awarded a damn thing both told basically to 'get lost'.
the situation you describe is unfortunate. i would advise not giving this designer another penny, and cutting your losses. if he is that difficult to work with during design, it sounds like he will be a nightmare if you need clarifications during construction, where schedule is paramount. I knew a fellow in southern california who fit the description to a tee- if it's him...run!
Feb 5, 16 1:37 pm ·
·
arch76,
I'm in general agreement with what everyone says. I don't care if the person is licensed or not, if they engage as a professional (and yes, being a home designer or building designer or whatever as a business is implying being a professional and duty to the client as a professional.
It's not about licensed or not licensed. It is about doing what is right but as we all know, there are people who just won't do what is right for the client regardless of the fee. If you accept a substandard fee as a design professional, it isn't okay to be unprofessional and excessively substandard. Minimum compliance of code can still be considered substandard but legally compliant.
In this situation, it is best to terminate contract with this designer. If there is contractual obligations to pay remaining amount of $1000 to the designer.... it might just be best to pay and get this monkey off your back and move on to a new professional that is better. Sure, one can fight crap in court but it is a waste of time and money. In the long run, a better professional should be commissioned to finish the rest of the work needed. At $2800 or so, this is already a low pay for a design professional. There should be room for the rest of the work to be done by a better design professional even with paying off this designer.
If I was the client, I would just cut the losses and move on then waste time and energy and money on crap. After all, paying the guy off means means he has no legal case really to pursue you and he could end up losing that because his failure to deliver would come to light and negate his position. This way, he's gone and you can move on with a clear mind with a new person moving forward without the that turd of a designer.
Basically, in a polite and cordial way, you tell the designer you currently have that you are terminating contract with that designer, here's your money per contract terms and have a nice day. Basically, politely saying.... here's your money, get the f--- lost.
You are being far more generous than me. I would fire this guy and apply that money to a new designer, someone who knows what they are doing. I do agree with you that unlicensed or licensed, low fee or high fee, a certain professional behavior is required. It seems a lot of these designers think a pretty Sketchup model is the end goal of the design process, and don't realize an actual building needs to be the result, with their work as a critical part of that process. Fire him and hire a pro.
Feb 5, 16 4:44 pm ·
·
arch76,
True but it is called picking your battles and moving on without being dragged into a court and crap.
I know that I would be considerably generous is probably more than that designer really deserves but it might be one of those bite the bullet in order to move forward and not be dragged into what might cost more in the long run not paying the designer to get him off and on his way so he won't be plaguing progress further down. If I was in the client's shoes, I would do this even if it was an architect at this fee level. At substantially larger fees, it would be a little different.
Like you said, the old designer would be fired from the project (contract terminated) and a new designer who is a pro (be it an architect or a truly professional designer... they exist), and basically pay the old guy off so that designer doesn't drag the client into court and cost more time, heartache, possibly money and slowing down progress as the designer does have potentially strong argument in a court case.
lolwut? the designer is trying to get more money to pay his consultants to make changes. it sounds like the client has withheld money from the original contract and will not pay out until the project is complete. the designer doesn't sound like he can find his ass with both hands, let alone sue for $1000. do you know how much it would cost to launch a lawsuit to recover $1000? that is not going to happen.
Lawsuit for this? You are an idiot Balkins. I know you have no experience with lawsuits and it's all talk so I'll feed you some information.
Let's say this guy has insurance and he files with the court for the measly $1000 and goes through small claims. The client can always counter sue for anything, can even drag him out of small claims because you have the right to do so and in that case hiring an attorney and paying the attorney fees will be way more than the money owned. At that point the insurance is not allowed to be involved as you proceeded with the matter by yourself and you will be out of even more money. Or let's say he does involve the insurance company, well the deductible is way more than that so I don't see point at all.
Don't advise somebody if you have no idea what you are talking about.
If I was the client I would walk away and get a new architect and be done with the project. Would not pay the "designer" anything because as arch76 said, the guy could not deliver a simple project let alone go through a lawsuit.
"I paid him $2800 for the drafter stuff. Another $1200 for structural."
"I work with him to finalize a floor plan. But then he calls me and said that the city requires us to get an structural engineer. This was right in the middle of us finishing the floor plan. This was not in the contract. I agreed and shelled out the money to pay $1200..."
Okay, the city required an engineer. The designer informed the designer and this becomes an additional service matter. As the client said, he agreed to pay the $1200.
Long winded headache later:
"He asking $1300 more money for the mechanical and electrical engineer because he has to rework the plans. They only need to be reworked because the last time he submitted was about the garage thing. I told him that I'm not gonna pay him. His demands are crazy. I don't know what is gonna happen but he said that he needs to talk to his structural engineer about the roofing because he thinks it's too heavy. In the contract I still have $1000 left and that is when plans are approved by the city everything then that's when I pay him. If he doesn't finish it he's gonna lose $1000...try to get $1300 but gonna lose it all if he refuses to finish the plans."
Did the designer agree to the client's coercion which by the way.... this can be illegal. It wasn't in the agreements previously established. This is a bad scenario. Here's the problem, the engineers can potentially lien on the property. Here' the thing, is the $1000 remaining on the contract for what had been performed so far has already been performed. The contract called for floor plans and such. Guess what, the designer did perform it. He made floor plans. Was it worth a damn... probably not but the designer did the floor plans. There is no indication that there was an established agreement on what the deliverable and performance requirements. All of which should have been in writing. The client has self-admitted to withholding money in what can be argued in (small claims most likely) court as a breach of contract.
The designer technically fulfilled the contract despite the poor qualities.
There is $2800 for the designer's drafting services that had been rendered. There is $1200 for the added services for the structural engineer. There is $1300 proposed for the mechanical & electrical engineer.
$2800 Drafting
$1200 Structural engineering & drafting services related to changes to reflect structural engineering.
----------------------------
That's $4,000 of billed / invoiced services rendered.
The M&E engineering services was not agreed upon from what I can tell.
There is $4000 of services rendered and performed.
Based on what was indicated, the client only paid $3000. This is a breach of contract because where the structural engineer or the designer may lien and sue in this matter.
If the designer paid off the engineer, the designer is in full right to claim that $1000 even though his services were poor as it appears from the CLIENT's perspective. We haven't heard the designer's perspective. I see a breach of contract. If the designer is smart, he would collect the words from this client's own post to support that. The client refused to pay the remaining part of what the client is legally obligated contractually to pay for what had been PERFORMED.
Forget the $1300 for the M&E. That's irrelevant and not in contract.
Lets assume the S.E. is paid off. That's $2800 of drafting contract that had been performed. The client only paid $1800 to the designer for the drafting services. That's a text book example of breach of contract. There had not been any indication of an established terms of what the deliverables are nor what there any specific criterion of performance and quality standards established in the agreement. At $2800, you can't expect much quality of work being performed in $2800 dollars. That's maybe 20 hours at $100 per hour Billed Hourly Rate. Maybe 45-50 hours of work for Billed Hourly rate of $60 which is about $20-24/hr. of direct labor rate.
This seems like a bad deal altogether.
I suggest to pay up the contract amount for what has been performed regarding the designer's drafting services and the structural engineer's work that had been performed. This way, the client is not legally in wrong which can cause the client to effectively forfeit any claims against the designer. While the designer may have performed substandard. The fee is substandard. The designer did by the client's own words fulfilled the contract from a legal perspective. There was no clearly defined agreed upon set of quality & performance standards that was agreed upon.
poop876... read the issue at hand a little closer.
Based on what I can tell, all the client paid was $3000 out of a $4000 billed invoice for services rendered. The $4000 invoice was $2800 for the drafting and $1200 for the S.E.
If the S.E. is paid for, only ~$1800 was paid to the designer/drafter. Therefore, the client failed to pay the designer for the drafting services rendered up to that point. The scope of work expanded beyond the original scope.
I suggest paying off what remains of the $4000 invoice for services rendered so that there is a reprisal of problems either by the designer or the structural engineer.
You suggest that he pay the invoice so that there is a reprisal of problems?
Why? So he can come back and write about more problems and you can play lawyer again?
Feb 6, 16 7:45 pm ·
·
Oop's typo.
Suppose to be isn't a reprisal of problems. Happen's in reediting too quickly.
Thanks Bloopox.
Feb 6, 16 7:47 pm ·
·
I suggest paying off what remains of the $4000 invoice for services rendered so that there is a reprisal of problems either by the designer or the structural engineer.
suppose to read:
I suggest paying off what remains of the $4000 invoice for services rendered so that there isn't a reprisal of problems either by the designer or the structural engineer.
...because beating a dead horse can be amusing....
It sounds like the SE has been paid. So the designer has received 1800 of a 2800 fee. The designer is requesting 1300 more via a "change order" to pay consultants for changes that sound like they came from the designer's poor understanding of local zoning ordinances.
You recommend paying the designer off and dismissing him. Again, you are very generous to want to throw good money after bad for fear of lawsuit, for fear of reprisal. horse shit.
If the client is worried about reprisal, he should pay all money into an escrow account to be released at issuance of the building permit, with a 3 month expiration for the designer to receive money from the account. While it is true that we are only hearing one side of this story, it sounds to me like the designer is way over his head and will not be able to deliver the project, even with adequate funding. The fact that he repeatedly blames the planning official for his own lack of knowledge is perplexing if true. I would structure the balance of the project to pay only if a permit gets delivered.
Screw these wannabe jokers- their incompetence hurts those of us that are trying to do this job well, and have to hear these horror stories and have to justify what we do to a skeptical public.
Feb 6, 16 9:47 pm ·
·
arch76,
Forget the $1300 because unless both parties agrees, it's unbillable and I wouldn't suggest the 'client' to pay the designer that $1300. I only suggest the client to pay only what the client is withholding. That's the $1000. That is all that is legally due UNLESS the 'client' had agreed to the Mechanical & Engineers to work on the project.
I suggest the 'client' close off and terminate contract with the designer and pay them all for work that has been performed that the client had agreed to pay. That is the designer's drafting services that had been performed that had been agreed to and the structural engineer.
As for the M&E Engineers, they are nothing and if the designer commissioned them to perform work without the client's agreement then it will come out of the designer's ass. His problem. That's how I see it.
While I also see your point and I think it is valid as well. I just want to be sure we are seeing each others point of view.
If there was clearer written & documented contract terms detailing what the designer is suppose to deliver as part of the services and what performance and quality standards, I would agree with your direction even more so. The apparent lack of it makes it harder for the client to justify withholding payment due to material breach of contract due to designer not performing the services as billed for. In order to do this legally, contracts really need to be recorded including the changes in contractual terms... be it written & signed or a recorded verbal agreement. Lack of that, makes it the designer vs the client and that makes it easier for the designer to claim a breach of contract violation of the client failing to do his/her responsibility of paying for services rendered that had been agreed upon.
The only things I see from the client's side that had been agreed upon is the designer's drafting service and the structural engineer.
If the client agreed to pay the M&E engineers, then that additional $1300 would need to be paid off. If the client did not agree, the client only owes ~$1000 and terminate the contract with that designer.
This is only from the limited perspective that is revealed by the client in this thread.
I agree with you with the idea of the escrow account for final payment due upon issuance of permit but that HAS to be addressed in writing or a recorded agreement but in this case, it is a little too late to just push that.... from a legal perspective. Client can not legally change terms of the contract willy nilly. It has to be mutually agreed and not under coercion.
Part of the designer's drafting service fees could potentially be recovered had there been an established documented agreement detailing the deliverables, the performance and quality standards... (ie. the expectations) prior.
The client not paying the designer for services rendered is technically a form theft of services and sometimes is considered a form of larceny.
It seems your point is that the designer is owed that $1000 because a contract is in place that somehow entitles the designer to this money, and that withholding that money is theft, misses the reality that the designer has been failing to perform according to that same contract. If this was a properly executed contract, it would have a termination clause, which should be exercised by the client.
We are only hypothetically arguing a situation of which we are only hearing one side. Perhaps I can not understand this designer's side because if I had screwed up a project this much and dragged it out for a year, I would be too ashamed to pursue the $1000. Perhaps I do not possess your killer instinct RickB-OR.
Feb 7, 16 1:42 am ·
·
arch76,
RickB-OR,
It seems your point is that the designer is owed that $1000 because a contract is in place that somehow entitles the designer to this money, and that withholding that money is theft, misses the reality that the designer has been failing to perform according to that same contract. If this was a properly executed contract, it would have a termination clause, which should be exercised by the client.
We are only hypothetically arguing a situation of which we are only hearing one side. Perhaps I can not understand this designer's side because if I had screwed up a project this much and dragged it out for a year, I would be too ashamed to pursue the $1000. Perhaps I do not possess your killer instinct RickB-OR.
You know, each time I read the client's posts, it seems to be constantly contradicting itself. Thinking about it, I'm not sure anymore what is really owed.
Put it mildly, it is a twisted up mess of a project and contract. It is about as twisted up of a mess as the client's explanation.
I agree with you, if I had screwed up a project this bad, I personally would likely not pursue chasing the $1000. It would be something I would want to get behind me so I can move on. I can't say all designers are like that.
If I was able to talk to the designer in question, I would suggest that he walk away from this project and amicably terminate contract.
The M & E engineers must had done very little and also walk from it. Let it go. Write off the losses as a tax deduction. $1300 isn't enough. The client get a new design professional.
Bad tax advice. He can write off a bad debt if he's done due diligence in trying to collect and has the invoices and communications to document that. If he ever does collect it in a future year he has to report it. But if he decided to just lets the client off the hook and walks away without trying to collect then it's not deductible. Walking away is sometimes the right thing to do, but not deductible.
Feb 7, 16 3:22 pm ·
·
JBeaumont,
First off, I wasn't referring to the designer but the M & E engineers but thinking about it, the M&E engineers are the designer's consultant. Privy of contract is between the designer and the subcontracted consultants. The client doesn't seem to agree.
Therefore, the M&E guys can hound the designer if the designer doesn't pay. Only problem with this crap is they may lien the client's property. You know what, this whole damn project is a total cluster f---.
It might be best for all parties to walk away. Take the losses. It doesn't amount to much anyway. Just recoup it through increasing what they charge in future projects if they have to.
Feb 7, 16 4:18 pm ·
·
As I think about it. I agree with you JBeaumont. It is bad tax advice or at lease plausible. Then again the designer and the M&E Engineers would be be dealing with their taxes as they do regardless of whatever I said.
Even if not taken as a deduction, it lowers the AGI because they received a lower income.
In California these engineers can't file a professional's lien because they don't have a contract with the owner and this "designer" can't file a professional's lien because he's not a licensed design professional. Any of them can eventually file a mechanic's lien if they provided services on something for which construction actually reaches substantial completion (unless construction costs are under $100k on a SFR) - but that's a long way off before they could file, and in any case if the designer walks away from the project or is terminated and the client finds new design help and builds something different based on the new designer's drawings then this whole original team will have no claim on the end product.
I hope the engineers have learned not to work with this "designer" or at least to contract directly with the owner on any future projects.
Also you mean "privity" not "privy". When used as a noun as in your sentence above "privy" means an outhouse.
Feb 7, 16 6:22 pm ·
·
Spontaneous,
Okay. I said a lien not type of lien. However, the engineers can go after the designer.
However, I don't know if the client is withholding information.
Yes, I meant privity but somehow this whole project and the contract seemed to have been contrived in a privy.
shit...at this point, i would love to know who the designer was, if only to see that their website was 600% cooler than what i could pull off...
Feb 8, 16 4:02 am ·
·
arch76,
I'd hope so. :-)
We are just circling over this cluster-f of a project this turned into. The 'client' communication here is pretty poor. Thanks for the dialogue, though.
I'd love to hear the other side of this story so I we can get a better picture. Right now, we are just debating with each other over something that you, me, Sponty, JBeaumont, and others here would have done a lot different from day 1.
Architect asking for change order money
citizen,
Sounds like a good idea. T+M rates.....
The bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of cheap price has been forgotten.
How angry I sound now is not how I sounded with him throughout the project. I never complained or said blantly at him that you suck at this. I just said this was not to my pleasing(is this more matureeee now?) I was beyond patient with him.
It was because of my patience and my sympathy that it led him to act like this. He lies a lot and it was because of him throughout the project he kept saying everything is good and good and I listened. He kept promising we are almost done and then we are almost done he was like oh I'm going on vacation or I don't have time. Do you know how annoying that is???? Don't think of it as a architects point of view, think of it as a homeowner. If I didn't listen to him this project would have finished much sooner because when I took action everything was finished and now it's almost finish he tries to throw a roadblock at me by asking for more money.
^ It is impossible for any of us to really give advice or even a professional opinion, since we are only getting one side of the story. Certainly, the time line for a small project like this does seem much too long. The problems with permitting, engineers, zoning etc. are hard to explain as well. It could be that the agencies really did blindside him, or it could be that he screwed up and/or that you don't understand what really happened. Communications have obviously broken down. I suggest talking to somebody else with more qualifications about where you are and how to get back on track.
Your experience is unfortunate. Is this "designer" a licensed architect? If so there are a number of things in your story that may constitute professional misconduct in California (depending on the other side of the story, of course). You can file a complaint with the architects board. It will not get you back your time or money, but it may get him warned, fined, or even result in revocation of his license - any of which may prevent him from repeating this behavior in the future. It will also be in publicly searchable records so that future potential clients can find this information before they get as far into a bad situation.
If he's not licensed then you don't have much recourse - in fact he'd most likely win if he took you to small claims court right now for the $1000 you're still holding out on the original contract. He has provided the drawings. The fact that you don't like them doesn't mean you don't have to pay him. You should have terminated the contract once you were finding that you did not like his work - not kept having him revise it, because now you have to pay for that work even though you still don't like it. Also you said yourself that there are no written records from all of the meetings and discussions in which changes were requested - so you've got no proof that the didn't do what was agreed to.
^ licensure has little bearing on liability...liability is about damages and breach of contract. If you cannot prove damages, and/or cannot prove breach of contract you have no recourse. The Judge may use discretion and treat a licensee more harshly, like a veterinarian being charged with animal cruelty, but anyone can be held liable.
I agree with you. I wasn't saying that he'd have any recourse in court with either an architect or unlicensed person. He wouldn't - he'd lose either way - it's not an issue of liability - he owes for services rendered. My point is that some of the OP's claims, if true, are specific violations of CAB's regulations - particularly with regard to what must be included in a contract for architectural services, and what must happen in order to document changes. He has a valid action with the licensing board, if everything he's saying is true, and if the "designer" is actually an architect.
^ The monies involved don't justify any kind of lawsuit. He should just try to figure out if the situation is salvagable or if he needs to start over. The guy is undoubtedly not licensed--just some little "designer" type working out of his spare bedroom. You get what you pay for.
Inhellwiththisarchitect,
We can't help you much. We are only seeing your side of the story. We can't change the situation for you. Word of advice, have a written and signed contract. I don't know if you do but it sounds like the under the table verbal contracts.
I see a lot of problems in this and lack of record keeping leaves little more than one side's conjecture vs. another. In civil court, I would imagine that the calm, collective and coherent will usually win the argument over that of a ranting mad person.
geezertect wrote:
^ The monies involved don't justify any kind of lawsuit. He should just try to figure out if the situation is salvagable or if he needs to start over. The guy is undoubtedly not licensed--just some little "designer" type working out of his spare bedroom. You get what you pay for.
I agree. I can't imagine any architect would be this bad and horrible.
If the person is NCBDC certified or a member of the AIBD, there is a possibility of filing a complaint through AIBD or the NCBDC council. I doubt this person is even an AIBD member or NCBDC certified because the professionals I know who are would not be the kind of people who would do this. Then all I have to see on this subject is the OP's.
From my point of view, it would be of AIBD/NCBDC's interest when a member/certified member is conducting themselves in this manner.
i'm wondering if this post wasn't just a test based on what I'm starting to see as formula to make long threads in the forum.....licensed vs unlicensed, lay person vs pros, and then expert googlers and wikipediars qouting shit they don't understand.
I don't think anybody's suggesting the OP file a lawsuit. If a lawsuit happens it would most likely be the designer taking the OP to small claims court for the $1000 he's holding hostage - and the designer will win that - they always do.
Olaf I've wondered if it's just a bait thread too - but the details are a little too weird and specific.
"A fool and her money are soon parted."
OJ Simpson
SpontaneousCombustion,
I don't think anybody's suggesting the OP file a lawsuit. If a lawsuit happens it would most likely be the designer taking the OP to small claims court for the $1000 he's holding hostage - and the designer will win that - they always do.
Olaf I've wondered if it's just a bait thread too - but the details are a little too weird and specific.
Sponty....
Not always the case but this would likely be one of those cases.
There is a chance also that neither of them is awarded a damn thing both told basically to 'get lost'.
I'd laugh if I see this on Judge Judy.
is it cool to qoute OJ now? or only on potential bait threads?
b3tadine: I think OJ said "a gold digger and her gold are soon parted".
on the previews they keep showing the actor portraying OJ saying -- "I am not Black, I am OJ"
inhellwiththisarchitect-
the situation you describe is unfortunate. i would advise not giving this designer another penny, and cutting your losses. if he is that difficult to work with during design, it sounds like he will be a nightmare if you need clarifications during construction, where schedule is paramount. I knew a fellow in southern california who fit the description to a tee- if it's him...run!
arch76,
I'm in general agreement with what everyone says. I don't care if the person is licensed or not, if they engage as a professional (and yes, being a home designer or building designer or whatever as a business is implying being a professional and duty to the client as a professional.
It's not about licensed or not licensed. It is about doing what is right but as we all know, there are people who just won't do what is right for the client regardless of the fee. If you accept a substandard fee as a design professional, it isn't okay to be unprofessional and excessively substandard. Minimum compliance of code can still be considered substandard but legally compliant.
In this situation, it is best to terminate contract with this designer. If there is contractual obligations to pay remaining amount of $1000 to the designer.... it might just be best to pay and get this monkey off your back and move on to a new professional that is better. Sure, one can fight crap in court but it is a waste of time and money. In the long run, a better professional should be commissioned to finish the rest of the work needed. At $2800 or so, this is already a low pay for a design professional. There should be room for the rest of the work to be done by a better design professional even with paying off this designer.
If I was the client, I would just cut the losses and move on then waste time and energy and money on crap. After all, paying the guy off means means he has no legal case really to pursue you and he could end up losing that because his failure to deliver would come to light and negate his position. This way, he's gone and you can move on with a clear mind with a new person moving forward without the that turd of a designer.
Basically, in a polite and cordial way, you tell the designer you currently have that you are terminating contract with that designer, here's your money per contract terms and have a nice day. Basically, politely saying.... here's your money, get the f--- lost.
RickB-OR,
You are being far more generous than me. I would fire this guy and apply that money to a new designer, someone who knows what they are doing. I do agree with you that unlicensed or licensed, low fee or high fee, a certain professional behavior is required. It seems a lot of these designers think a pretty Sketchup model is the end goal of the design process, and don't realize an actual building needs to be the result, with their work as a critical part of that process. Fire him and hire a pro.
arch76,
True but it is called picking your battles and moving on without being dragged into a court and crap.
I know that I would be considerably generous is probably more than that designer really deserves but it might be one of those bite the bullet in order to move forward and not be dragged into what might cost more in the long run not paying the designer to get him off and on his way so he won't be plaguing progress further down. If I was in the client's shoes, I would do this even if it was an architect at this fee level. At substantially larger fees, it would be a little different.
Like you said, the old designer would be fired from the project (contract terminated) and a new designer who is a pro (be it an architect or a truly professional designer... they exist), and basically pay the old guy off so that designer doesn't drag the client into court and cost more time, heartache, possibly money and slowing down progress as the designer does have potentially strong argument in a court case.
lolwut? the designer is trying to get more money to pay his consultants to make changes. it sounds like the client has withheld money from the original contract and will not pay out until the project is complete. the designer doesn't sound like he can find his ass with both hands, let alone sue for $1000. do you know how much it would cost to launch a lawsuit to recover $1000? that is not going to happen.
It would be a small claims matter. The filing fee for that here is $30.
^------------ yep. Give or take a little depending on the specific court's filing fees.
Lawsuit for this? You are an idiot Balkins. I know you have no experience with lawsuits and it's all talk so I'll feed you some information.
Let's say this guy has insurance and he files with the court for the measly $1000 and goes through small claims. The client can always counter sue for anything, can even drag him out of small claims because you have the right to do so and in that case hiring an attorney and paying the attorney fees will be way more than the money owned. At that point the insurance is not allowed to be involved as you proceeded with the matter by yourself and you will be out of even more money. Or let's say he does involve the insurance company, well the deductible is way more than that so I don't see point at all.
Don't advise somebody if you have no idea what you are talking about.
If I was the client I would walk away and get a new architect and be done with the project. Would not pay the "designer" anything because as arch76 said, the guy could not deliver a simple project let alone go through a lawsuit.
Stop talking nonsense!
I think Balkin's invented this character and thread so he could continue his usual non-sense.
You are probably right and am fucking wasting my time on this shit!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/1062.htm - The case could go to Limited Civil Court for a number of reasons.
Lets look at this:
"I paid him $2800 for the drafter stuff. Another $1200 for structural."
"I work with him to finalize a floor plan. But then he calls me and said that the city requires us to get an structural engineer. This was right in the middle of us finishing the floor plan. This was not in the contract. I agreed and shelled out the money to pay $1200..."
Okay, the city required an engineer. The designer informed the designer and this becomes an additional service matter. As the client said, he agreed to pay the $1200.
Long winded headache later:
"He asking $1300 more money for the mechanical and electrical engineer because he has to rework the plans. They only need to be reworked because the last time he submitted was about the garage thing. I told him that I'm not gonna pay him. His demands are crazy. I don't know what is gonna happen but he said that he needs to talk to his structural engineer about the roofing because he thinks it's too heavy. In the contract I still have $1000 left and that is when plans are approved by the city everything then that's when I pay him. If he doesn't finish it he's gonna lose $1000...try to get $1300 but gonna lose it all if he refuses to finish the plans."
Did the designer agree to the client's coercion which by the way.... this can be illegal. It wasn't in the agreements previously established. This is a bad scenario. Here's the problem, the engineers can potentially lien on the property. Here' the thing, is the $1000 remaining on the contract for what had been performed so far has already been performed. The contract called for floor plans and such. Guess what, the designer did perform it. He made floor plans. Was it worth a damn... probably not but the designer did the floor plans. There is no indication that there was an established agreement on what the deliverable and performance requirements. All of which should have been in writing. The client has self-admitted to withholding money in what can be argued in (small claims most likely) court as a breach of contract.
The designer technically fulfilled the contract despite the poor qualities.
There is $2800 for the designer's drafting services that had been rendered. There is $1200 for the added services for the structural engineer. There is $1300 proposed for the mechanical & electrical engineer.
$2800 Drafting
$1200 Structural engineering & drafting services related to changes to reflect structural engineering.
----------------------------
That's $4,000 of billed / invoiced services rendered.
The M&E engineering services was not agreed upon from what I can tell.
There is $4000 of services rendered and performed.
Based on what was indicated, the client only paid $3000. This is a breach of contract because where the structural engineer or the designer may lien and sue in this matter.
If the designer paid off the engineer, the designer is in full right to claim that $1000 even though his services were poor as it appears from the CLIENT's perspective. We haven't heard the designer's perspective. I see a breach of contract. If the designer is smart, he would collect the words from this client's own post to support that. The client refused to pay the remaining part of what the client is legally obligated contractually to pay for what had been PERFORMED.
Forget the $1300 for the M&E. That's irrelevant and not in contract.
Lets assume the S.E. is paid off. That's $2800 of drafting contract that had been performed. The client only paid $1800 to the designer for the drafting services. That's a text book example of breach of contract. There had not been any indication of an established terms of what the deliverables are nor what there any specific criterion of performance and quality standards established in the agreement. At $2800, you can't expect much quality of work being performed in $2800 dollars. That's maybe 20 hours at $100 per hour Billed Hourly Rate. Maybe 45-50 hours of work for Billed Hourly rate of $60 which is about $20-24/hr. of direct labor rate.
This seems like a bad deal altogether.
I suggest to pay up the contract amount for what has been performed regarding the designer's drafting services and the structural engineer's work that had been performed. This way, the client is not legally in wrong which can cause the client to effectively forfeit any claims against the designer. While the designer may have performed substandard. The fee is substandard. The designer did by the client's own words fulfilled the contract from a legal perspective. There was no clearly defined agreed upon set of quality & performance standards that was agreed upon.
poop876... read the issue at hand a little closer.
Based on what I can tell, all the client paid was $3000 out of a $4000 billed invoice for services rendered. The $4000 invoice was $2800 for the drafting and $1200 for the S.E.
If the S.E. is paid for, only ~$1800 was paid to the designer/drafter. Therefore, the client failed to pay the designer for the drafting services rendered up to that point. The scope of work expanded beyond the original scope.
I suggest paying off what remains of the $4000 invoice for services rendered so that there is a reprisal of problems either by the designer or the structural engineer.
You suggest that he pay the invoice so that there is a reprisal of problems?
Why? So he can come back and write about more problems and you can play lawyer again?
Oop's typo.
Suppose to be isn't a reprisal of problems. Happen's in reediting too quickly.
Thanks Bloopox.
I suggest paying off what remains of the $4000 invoice for services rendered so that there is a reprisal of problems either by the designer or the structural engineer.
suppose to read:
I suggest paying off what remains of the $4000 invoice for services rendered so that there isn't a reprisal of problems either by the designer or the structural engineer.
*** Ran out of time to edit ***
RickB-OR,
...because beating a dead horse can be amusing....
It sounds like the SE has been paid. So the designer has received 1800 of a 2800 fee. The designer is requesting 1300 more via a "change order" to pay consultants for changes that sound like they came from the designer's poor understanding of local zoning ordinances.
You recommend paying the designer off and dismissing him. Again, you are very generous to want to throw good money after bad for fear of lawsuit, for fear of reprisal. horse shit.
If the client is worried about reprisal, he should pay all money into an escrow account to be released at issuance of the building permit, with a 3 month expiration for the designer to receive money from the account. While it is true that we are only hearing one side of this story, it sounds to me like the designer is way over his head and will not be able to deliver the project, even with adequate funding. The fact that he repeatedly blames the planning official for his own lack of knowledge is perplexing if true. I would structure the balance of the project to pay only if a permit gets delivered.
Screw these wannabe jokers- their incompetence hurts those of us that are trying to do this job well, and have to hear these horror stories and have to justify what we do to a skeptical public.
arch76,
Forget the $1300 because unless both parties agrees, it's unbillable and I wouldn't suggest the 'client' to pay the designer that $1300. I only suggest the client to pay only what the client is withholding. That's the $1000. That is all that is legally due UNLESS the 'client' had agreed to the Mechanical & Engineers to work on the project.
I suggest the 'client' close off and terminate contract with the designer and pay them all for work that has been performed that the client had agreed to pay. That is the designer's drafting services that had been performed that had been agreed to and the structural engineer.
As for the M&E Engineers, they are nothing and if the designer commissioned them to perform work without the client's agreement then it will come out of the designer's ass. His problem. That's how I see it.
While I also see your point and I think it is valid as well. I just want to be sure we are seeing each others point of view.
If there was clearer written & documented contract terms detailing what the designer is suppose to deliver as part of the services and what performance and quality standards, I would agree with your direction even more so. The apparent lack of it makes it harder for the client to justify withholding payment due to material breach of contract due to designer not performing the services as billed for. In order to do this legally, contracts really need to be recorded including the changes in contractual terms... be it written & signed or a recorded verbal agreement. Lack of that, makes it the designer vs the client and that makes it easier for the designer to claim a breach of contract violation of the client failing to do his/her responsibility of paying for services rendered that had been agreed upon.
The only things I see from the client's side that had been agreed upon is the designer's drafting service and the structural engineer.
If the client agreed to pay the M&E engineers, then that additional $1300 would need to be paid off. If the client did not agree, the client only owes ~$1000 and terminate the contract with that designer.
This is only from the limited perspective that is revealed by the client in this thread.
I agree with you with the idea of the escrow account for final payment due upon issuance of permit but that HAS to be addressed in writing or a recorded agreement but in this case, it is a little too late to just push that.... from a legal perspective. Client can not legally change terms of the contract willy nilly. It has to be mutually agreed and not under coercion.
Part of the designer's drafting service fees could potentially be recovered had there been an established documented agreement detailing the deliverables, the performance and quality standards... (ie. the expectations) prior.
The client not paying the designer for services rendered is technically a form theft of services and sometimes is considered a form of larceny.
RickB-OR,
It seems your point is that the designer is owed that $1000 because a contract is in place that somehow entitles the designer to this money, and that withholding that money is theft, misses the reality that the designer has been failing to perform according to that same contract. If this was a properly executed contract, it would have a termination clause, which should be exercised by the client.
We are only hypothetically arguing a situation of which we are only hearing one side. Perhaps I can not understand this designer's side because if I had screwed up a project this much and dragged it out for a year, I would be too ashamed to pursue the $1000. Perhaps I do not possess your killer instinct RickB-OR.
arch76,
RickB-OR,
It seems your point is that the designer is owed that $1000 because a contract is in place that somehow entitles the designer to this money, and that withholding that money is theft, misses the reality that the designer has been failing to perform according to that same contract. If this was a properly executed contract, it would have a termination clause, which should be exercised by the client.
We are only hypothetically arguing a situation of which we are only hearing one side. Perhaps I can not understand this designer's side because if I had screwed up a project this much and dragged it out for a year, I would be too ashamed to pursue the $1000. Perhaps I do not possess your killer instinct RickB-OR.
You know, each time I read the client's posts, it seems to be constantly contradicting itself. Thinking about it, I'm not sure anymore what is really owed.
Put it mildly, it is a twisted up mess of a project and contract. It is about as twisted up of a mess as the client's explanation.
I agree with you, if I had screwed up a project this bad, I personally would likely not pursue chasing the $1000. It would be something I would want to get behind me so I can move on. I can't say all designers are like that.
If I was able to talk to the designer in question, I would suggest that he walk away from this project and amicably terminate contract.
The M & E engineers must had done very little and also walk from it. Let it go. Write off the losses as a tax deduction. $1300 isn't enough. The client get a new design professional.
Bad tax advice. He can write off a bad debt if he's done due diligence in trying to collect and has the invoices and communications to document that. If he ever does collect it in a future year he has to report it. But if he decided to just lets the client off the hook and walks away without trying to collect then it's not deductible. Walking away is sometimes the right thing to do, but not deductible.
JBeaumont,
First off, I wasn't referring to the designer but the M & E engineers but thinking about it, the M&E engineers are the designer's consultant. Privy of contract is between the designer and the subcontracted consultants. The client doesn't seem to agree.
Therefore, the M&E guys can hound the designer if the designer doesn't pay. Only problem with this crap is they may lien the client's property. You know what, this whole damn project is a total cluster f---.
It might be best for all parties to walk away. Take the losses. It doesn't amount to much anyway. Just recoup it through increasing what they charge in future projects if they have to.
As I think about it. I agree with you JBeaumont. It is bad tax advice or at lease plausible. Then again the designer and the M&E Engineers would be be dealing with their taxes as they do regardless of whatever I said.
Even if not taken as a deduction, it lowers the AGI because they received a lower income.
In California these engineers can't file a professional's lien because they don't have a contract with the owner and this "designer" can't file a professional's lien because he's not a licensed design professional. Any of them can eventually file a mechanic's lien if they provided services on something for which construction actually reaches substantial completion (unless construction costs are under $100k on a SFR) - but that's a long way off before they could file, and in any case if the designer walks away from the project or is terminated and the client finds new design help and builds something different based on the new designer's drawings then this whole original team will have no claim on the end product.
I hope the engineers have learned not to work with this "designer" or at least to contract directly with the owner on any future projects.
Also you mean "privity" not "privy". When used as a noun as in your sentence above "privy" means an outhouse.
Spontaneous,
Okay. I said a lien not type of lien. However, the engineers can go after the designer.
However, I don't know if the client is withholding information.
Yes, I meant privity but somehow this whole project and the contract seemed to have been contrived in a privy.
shit...at this point, i would love to know who the designer was, if only to see that their website was 600% cooler than what i could pull off...
arch76,
I'd hope so. :-)
We are just circling over this cluster-f of a project this turned into. The 'client' communication here is pretty poor. Thanks for the dialogue, though.
I'd love to hear the other side of this story so I we can get a better picture. Right now, we are just debating with each other over something that you, me, Sponty, JBeaumont, and others here would have done a lot different from day 1.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.