Terminate architect contract due to slow planning?

Hello!

Since January, we have wanted to renovate a terraced house. In November, in preparation for the purchase, we engaged an architect as an expert. He made a good impression, so in December we asked him if he would also supervise the renovation including the attic conversion. In the first half of January, he visited the property for an energy consultation and we signed the contract. Since we wanted the construction to be as stress-free as possible, we directly commissioned LPH1-8.

I had already informed him during the inspection and when asking for an offer that our desired move-in date was in August, that our budget was 100,000 EUR for renovation plus 20,000 EUR for construction supervision, and that we would like to start planning in January and begin initial measures (gutting) in February.

He pointed out that the schedule was very tight because craftsmen were very busy and something would always go wrong, so he did not want to give us a move-in date.

Unfortunately, we were very naive about everything.

Now comes the first breach of trust: When the energy consultation report was completed in mid-January, we asked for an appointment to start planning. He only had time in mid-February because he had two weeks of vacation beforehand – despite our tight schedule, he did not inform us about his vacation in advance.

The appointment after his vacation was good again and there were some legal issues (WEG) that had to be clarified. During this period we also decided not to reroof the house to save time and costs.

In mid-March, I first pointed out that the planning progress was too slow. The only progress made in two months was the application for KFW funding. At the end of March, the documents for LPH1 and 2 arrived – (flawed) existing floor plans, plans for the attic conversion, and elevations.

He still did not want to give us a schedule.

Then there was the next major loss of trust. He did not want to support collaboration with a planner by releasing his plans. While it is okay to ask for source files, the way he rejected this was quite brusque. There was a phone call in which I complained and also mentioned the time loss and the lack of a schedule. Then a rough schedule followed.

This was initially adhered to, LPH3 was completed a week later, LPH4 another week later.

During this period, the next loss of trust came. He always led us to believe that we could flexibly cancel individual orders afterwards, for example if we planned a roof replacement but did not carry it out, the fee for construction supervision (LPH8) would be waived. We actually wanted to deselect some parts already in LPH3 because we would have neither time nor budget for them anyway. However, the architect persuaded us to keep them in the plan for now because we could still deselect them in LPH7. Only after acceptance of LPH3 did he clearly tell us that his fee would be fixed from now on, regardless of whether we ultimately carried out anything.

As I said, we were naive. But we did not argue long because we wanted to keep things moving. At least now we had a schedule according to which the order should be placed by the end of May.

However, LPH5 then arrived a week late and was also rather limited in scope: there was a stack of drawings – attic conversion (stairs, ceiling/floor construction) and a few details about window installation and ceiling insulation in the basement as well as the position of radiators. After some corrections, we approved the result subject to the condition that possibly missing details would be supplied later.

What was completely missing: the integration of the structural engineer. He had already taken measurements at the end of March but only sent them to the structural engineer at the end of April. The structural engineer now wanted a joint preliminary discussion; however, the architect only has time at the end of May (two weeks after the appointment request) – shouldn’t the structural calculations already have been done for LPH5?

For us, the limit has now finally been reached. After almost five months of planning for nothing extraordinary, it is still unclear when the first construction work can be carried out! We have now given the architect a schedule that he should accept and follow. Also, some rather strict conditions (that he should no longer charge for undesired measures from LPH5 onward and that we withhold payment for LPH5 until LPH6 is completed).

A reply is still pending, but we wonder whether these constant delays and the refusal to establish and follow a proper schedule are sufficient grounds to terminate the contract for cause. Especially since almost five months have now passed without anything happening at the house.

We are at the end of our nerves because every further delay costs us a lot of money and we have been constantly looking for solutions to at least make some progress. So now we do have the stress we wanted to avoid, face major delays, and are still paying almost 30,000 EUR in fees (with a budget of 100,000 EUR).

Thank you for reading and we would be very grateful for tips on how to proceed.

You have completed 5 out of 8 levels. Forcing a change now is harakiri. Financial bottleneck during mandatory renovation is always a bad advisor.

Thank you for the response. Recently, that would have been my preferred option as well, but given how things have gone so far, we have strong doubts that he will carry out the next phases promptly. There will be a week passing here, a week passing there. The submission will provide material for questions, which he will then use as reasons for further delays. In the end, the contracts will only be awarded in two months, and we no longer have that time.

We will now start contacting craftsmen ourselves and awarding contracts. With LPH8, we will have to see whether we can still manage with the architect or if we need to find a new energy consultant to supervise and approve the KfW part, and whether perhaps the structural engineer can approve the parts related to the structural engineering.

Hence the question: If we no longer reach an agreement with the architect (and it looks that way, we have already had several similar conversations, and now he is stalling us again and demanding payment of his invoice for LPH5), what are the chances that we can still come out of this with a "blue eye," i.e. not have to pay the architect for LPH6-8?

Thank you for the answer. Recently, that would have been my preference as well, but given how things have gone so far, we have serious doubts that he will push through the next phases quickly. There will be a week here, a week there. The submission will provide material for questions, which he will then use as reasons for further delays. In the end, the contracts will only be awarded in two months; we simply don’t have that time anymore. We will now begin contacting craftsmen ourselves and awarding contracts. With LPH8, we will have to see whether we should still try to get along with the architect or if we need to find a new energy consultant to monitor and approve the KfW part, and whether maybe the structural engineer can approve the parts related to statics. Therefore the question: If we can no longer reach an agreement with the architect (and it looks that way; we have had similar conversations several times, and now he is stalling again and demanding payment of his invoice for LPH5), what are the chances that we can still come out of this with a “blue eye,” i.e., not have to pay the architect for LPH6-8?

that’s what the lawyer tells you. I also find your approach suspicious, simply becoming active in parallel without firing the architect or giving formal notice or whatever.

Ultimately, your architect plays all the cards he legally has, and you let him walk all over you. I'm not a lawyer, so it's best to ask one. If it were my project, I would stop all payments, evaluate the services provided so far, set aside reserves for them, and complete the project without him. Advantage: now he has to chase after you, otherwise he won't see any more money. You do your thing and he can struggle.

: That is exactly our plan, hopefully it is good enough.

: Over the past months, we have informed the architect at least four times that we are not satisfied with the progress and that he has given us wrong advice. Twice the tone was also sharper. We failed to set him in default at that time (when he was on vacation). In the last email, we issued a reminder. He requested ten days extension for the review and at the same time issued his invoice with a ten-day deadline...

Because of this deadline, the appointment with the structural engineer could pass, and whether we agree or not, the overall progress will be further delayed.