Trouble with architect's bill for planned construction project

Somehow everyone here missed that the mentioned architect herself said she couldn’t calculate anything because nothing had happened. Calculating working hours afterwards that did occur is at least unfair. However, I suspect the OP will still have to pay, as he probably doesn’t have this statement in writing.

Somehow everyone here overlooked that the mentioned architect herself said she couldn't calculate anything because nothing had happened.

No. But as a reader, you have to filter something. That is, for example, unobjectivity, exaggeration, or emotions in the presentation of a circumstance. And here I would say that the lady probably said something different, was possibly misunderstood, and was quoted here with the words "nothing happened," which I consider inappropriate. What does the "there" mean? What does the "was" refer to? What does the "nothing" refer to? Many things could be said, but not that or that alone. I would probably say: "it wasn't much (what I did)." Because half a working day is "not much." But those would now be speculations. So you stick to the fact here. And it is a service, whose payment is of course due.

What am I supposed to calculate, nothing happened." After many weeks she sent us back the provided construction documents - along with the invoice for 5 hours,

Somehow everyone here overlooked that the mentioned architect herself said she couldn’t calculate anything because nothing had happened.

True, that’s probably how the OP understood and wrote it. Whether there is a misunderstanding, a lapse of memory on the part of the architect, or unreliability is unclear. When you receive something like that as a gift, a written thank-you email is certainly not a mistake. It pleases the other party and creates a paper trail.

There is also the possibility of asking politely. Perhaps the architect does not write her invoices herself and the process was rushed through by an assistant following a set procedure.

: Hmm, I see it differently. We are here as a layperson forum to help the OP and exchange opinions on the situation he presented. In this respect, we cannot act as a "High Court" to determine the true facts based on evidence and witness statements and then pass judgment, but we rely on and, in my opinion, are obliged to believe the OP's account. Opinion of course also means that one can believe the OP is fibbing. However, doing so without any corresponding indication is not very constructive. The trend of the statements here also seemed very one-sided to me, which is why I pointed out that at least the architect's behavior, according to the account, was not acceptable. But yes, I also think that the OP ultimately has to pay the bill. However, I find his resentment understandable and do not respond to it with the implicit condescension that some others here show.

In this respect, we cannot act here as a "High Court" to determine the true facts based on evidence and witness statements and then pronounce a judgment, but rather we have to, and in my opinion should, believe the account of the OP.

Thank you very much for the reminder and clarification. I can't click "agree" enough!