Hello!
Since January, we have been working on renovating a townhouse. In November, before buying, we hired an architect as an assessor. He made a good impression, so in December we asked if he could also manage the renovation including the attic conversion. In early January, he visited the property for an energy consultation, and we signed the contract. To keep the construction process as stress-free as possible, we commissioned him for phases 1 to 8 of the service phases (LPH1-8).
I had already informed him during the assessment and when requesting an offer that our desired move-in date was in August, our budget was €100,000 (approximately $105,000) for the renovation plus €20,000 (approximately $21,000) for construction supervision, and that we wanted to start planning in January and begin initial work (gutting) in February.
He pointed out that the schedule was very tight since contractors were very busy and unexpected issues always arise, so he did not want to commit to a move-in date.
Unfortunately, we were very naive about everything.
Now the first breach of trust: When the energy consultation report was completed in mid-January, we asked for a meeting to start planning. He was only available in mid-February due to two weeks of vacation before that—despite our tight schedule, he did not inform us about his vacation in advance.
The meeting after his vacation went well, and there were some legal issues (homeowners’ association) that needed clarification. During this period, we also decided not to replace the roof covering to save time and costs.
In mid-March, I first mentioned that the planning progress was too slow. The only progress in two months was applying for KfW funding. At the end of March, we finally received the documents for phases 1 and 2—(faulty) as-built floor plans, attic conversion floor plans, and elevations.
He still did not provide us with a timeline.
Then came another major loss of trust. He refused to support collaboration with a planner by sharing his plans. We understood that sharing original source files is acceptable, but the way he declined was quite blunt. I complained during a phone call and also mentioned the lost time and lack of a schedule again. After this, he provided a rough timeline.
This was initially followed, with phase 3 completed a week later and phase 4 a week after that.
During this time, there was another breach of trust. He had always led us to believe that individual contracts could be cancelled flexibly later, for example, if we planned to replace the roof but then did not, the construction supervision fee (phase 8) would be waived. We actually wanted to remove some parts already in phase 3 since we expected not to have the time or budget, but the architect persuaded us to keep them in the plan for now because we could still remove them in phase 7. Only after phase 3 acceptance did he clearly inform us that his fees were fixed from then on, regardless of whether we proceeded with the work or not.
As mentioned, we were naive but did not argue much because we wanted to move forward. At least we now had a timeline aiming to issue contracts by the end of May.
However, phase 5 was again delayed by a week and was rather limited in scope: a stack of drawings—for the attic conversion (stairs, ceiling/floor construction) and some details on window installation and basement ceiling insulation as well as radiator locations. After some corrections, we approved the results with the caveat that any missing details would be provided later.
What was completely missing: structural engineer involvement. The architect took measurements at the end of March but only sent them to the engineer at the end of April. The engineer now requested a preliminary joint meeting, but the architect is only available at the end of May (two weeks after the request)—shouldn’t the structural calculations have been done for phase 5?
For us, this is the last straw. After almost five months of planning for nothing extraordinary, it is still unclear when the first construction work will start! We have now set a timeline that the architect has agreed to follow. We also imposed some strict conditions (that he must not charge for measures we do not want from phase 5 onward and that we will withhold payment for phase 5 until phase 6 is complete).
We have not received a response yet, but we wonder whether these constant delays and his refusal to provide and adhere to a proper schedule are sufficient grounds to terminate the contract for cause. Especially since almost five months have passed without any work starting on the house.
We are emotionally exhausted as every further delay costs us a lot of money, and we keep searching for ways to make some progress. So now we have the stress we wanted to avoid, face major delays, and still have to pay almost €30,000 (approximately $31,500) in fees on a budget of €100,000 (approximately $105,000).
Thank you for reading, and we would greatly appreciate any advice on how to proceed.
Since January, we have been working on renovating a townhouse. In November, before buying, we hired an architect as an assessor. He made a good impression, so in December we asked if he could also manage the renovation including the attic conversion. In early January, he visited the property for an energy consultation, and we signed the contract. To keep the construction process as stress-free as possible, we commissioned him for phases 1 to 8 of the service phases (LPH1-8).
I had already informed him during the assessment and when requesting an offer that our desired move-in date was in August, our budget was €100,000 (approximately $105,000) for the renovation plus €20,000 (approximately $21,000) for construction supervision, and that we wanted to start planning in January and begin initial work (gutting) in February.
He pointed out that the schedule was very tight since contractors were very busy and unexpected issues always arise, so he did not want to commit to a move-in date.
Unfortunately, we were very naive about everything.
Now the first breach of trust: When the energy consultation report was completed in mid-January, we asked for a meeting to start planning. He was only available in mid-February due to two weeks of vacation before that—despite our tight schedule, he did not inform us about his vacation in advance.
The meeting after his vacation went well, and there were some legal issues (homeowners’ association) that needed clarification. During this period, we also decided not to replace the roof covering to save time and costs.
In mid-March, I first mentioned that the planning progress was too slow. The only progress in two months was applying for KfW funding. At the end of March, we finally received the documents for phases 1 and 2—(faulty) as-built floor plans, attic conversion floor plans, and elevations.
He still did not provide us with a timeline.
Then came another major loss of trust. He refused to support collaboration with a planner by sharing his plans. We understood that sharing original source files is acceptable, but the way he declined was quite blunt. I complained during a phone call and also mentioned the lost time and lack of a schedule again. After this, he provided a rough timeline.
This was initially followed, with phase 3 completed a week later and phase 4 a week after that.
During this time, there was another breach of trust. He had always led us to believe that individual contracts could be cancelled flexibly later, for example, if we planned to replace the roof but then did not, the construction supervision fee (phase 8) would be waived. We actually wanted to remove some parts already in phase 3 since we expected not to have the time or budget, but the architect persuaded us to keep them in the plan for now because we could still remove them in phase 7. Only after phase 3 acceptance did he clearly inform us that his fees were fixed from then on, regardless of whether we proceeded with the work or not.
As mentioned, we were naive but did not argue much because we wanted to move forward. At least we now had a timeline aiming to issue contracts by the end of May.
However, phase 5 was again delayed by a week and was rather limited in scope: a stack of drawings—for the attic conversion (stairs, ceiling/floor construction) and some details on window installation and basement ceiling insulation as well as radiator locations. After some corrections, we approved the results with the caveat that any missing details would be provided later.
What was completely missing: structural engineer involvement. The architect took measurements at the end of March but only sent them to the engineer at the end of April. The engineer now requested a preliminary joint meeting, but the architect is only available at the end of May (two weeks after the request)—shouldn’t the structural calculations have been done for phase 5?
For us, this is the last straw. After almost five months of planning for nothing extraordinary, it is still unclear when the first construction work will start! We have now set a timeline that the architect has agreed to follow. We also imposed some strict conditions (that he must not charge for measures we do not want from phase 5 onward and that we will withhold payment for phase 5 until phase 6 is complete).
We have not received a response yet, but we wonder whether these constant delays and his refusal to provide and adhere to a proper schedule are sufficient grounds to terminate the contract for cause. Especially since almost five months have passed without any work starting on the house.
We are emotionally exhausted as every further delay costs us a lot of money, and we keep searching for ways to make some progress. So now we have the stress we wanted to avoid, face major delays, and still have to pay almost €30,000 (approximately $31,500) in fees on a budget of €100,000 (approximately $105,000).
Thank you for reading, and we would greatly appreciate any advice on how to proceed.
MaxLumoc schrieb:
further delay the overall progress.What exactly is being delayed? The contractually agreed completion/delivery deadline? Or a (more or less) non-contractual schedule?Are there any contractually agreed deadlines?
The completed project phases will need to be paid for. Keep in mind, especially if you live in a rural area, that your reputation as a non-payer can spread quickly within the industry.
Your architect is not delivering because, like everyone else, they have too many projects. You can’t rule this out with the next one either, but you can be more strict with the (written and fixed) deadlines. Simply citing delay as a reason for termination is not enough; there must be contractual penalties, otherwise, it is ineffective. Whether anyone will sign that for you remains uncertain.
I would proceed now. Delays must always be anticipated—this time it was just the architect, next could be the trades (or maybe not). Renovations especially always bring surprises.
The completed project phases will need to be paid for. Keep in mind, especially if you live in a rural area, that your reputation as a non-payer can spread quickly within the industry.
Your architect is not delivering because, like everyone else, they have too many projects. You can’t rule this out with the next one either, but you can be more strict with the (written and fixed) deadlines. Simply citing delay as a reason for termination is not enough; there must be contractual penalties, otherwise, it is ineffective. Whether anyone will sign that for you remains uncertain.
I would proceed now. Delays must always be anticipated—this time it was just the architect, next could be the trades (or maybe not). Renovations especially always bring surprises.
@MayrCh / Deadlines in the contract:
That is exactly the problem. Although he was aware of our desired date, he never addressed creating a detailed schedule. He occasionally mentioned that phase X would be completed within one to two weeks, but these timelines usually got delayed and ended up taking three to four weeks. Only recently, when I made acceptance/payment dependent on a schedule, did he provide a timeline with calendar weeks. The first two weeks of that schedule were met, but then delays occurred again. Since he has no availability for the meeting with the structural engineer until the end of the month, his schedule realistically couldn’t have been feasible. (Work stage 6 was supposed to be completed in the last calendar week – can work stage 5 even be considered finished if the structural engineer hasn’t been consulted yet?)
We have now given him a schedule with fixed deliverables per calendar week, which he still needs to review...
That is exactly the problem. Although he was aware of our desired date, he never addressed creating a detailed schedule. He occasionally mentioned that phase X would be completed within one to two weeks, but these timelines usually got delayed and ended up taking three to four weeks. Only recently, when I made acceptance/payment dependent on a schedule, did he provide a timeline with calendar weeks. The first two weeks of that schedule were met, but then delays occurred again. Since he has no availability for the meeting with the structural engineer until the end of the month, his schedule realistically couldn’t have been feasible. (Work stage 6 was supposed to be completed in the last calendar week – can work stage 5 even be considered finished if the structural engineer hasn’t been consulted yet?)
We have now given him a schedule with fixed deliverables per calendar week, which he still needs to review...
H
HilfeHilfe19 May 2020 13:23MaxLumoc schrieb:
@MayrCh / Deadlines in the contract:
That is exactly the problem. He was aware of our preferred completion date but never agreed to set up a detailed schedule. He occasionally said: Phase X would be finished in one to two weeks, but it usually got delayed and ended up taking three to four weeks. Only recently, when I made acceptance/payment dependent on a schedule, did he prepare a timeline with calendar weeks. The first two weeks of that schedule were met, but then it was delayed again. Since he doesn’t have time for the appointment with the structural engineer until the end of the month, his schedule couldn’t realistically be achievable. (Service phase 6 was supposed to be completed in the last calendar week – can service phase 5 even be considered finished if the structural engineer hasn’t even been consulted yet?)
Now we have given him a schedule with fixed deliverables per calendar week, which he still needs to review...Well, it’s positive that he is reviewing it!MaxLumoc schrieb:
That is exactly the problem.So clearly, no fixed completion deadlines were contractually agreed upon. Therefore, it would need to be clarified what constitutes a "reasonable period for completion." Whether the planning and execution of the work phases 1-8 for gutting, renovation, and attic conversion are currently "reasonable" must at least be questioned. On the one hand, considering the impact of Covid-19, and on the other, given the current workload situation in the trade sector. My brother-in-law has been in need of carpenters since the beginning of this year. Out of many, many requests, he only received a commitment for July 2021.All the more frustrating is that the architect allowed so much time to pass. (And that I didn’t insist on setting a deadline for the services he was supposed to deliver.)
We will probably offer him a termination agreement that grants him the fee up to design phase 5 (LPH5).
We will probably offer him a termination agreement that grants him the fee up to design phase 5 (LPH5).
Similar topics