��һ�ǿ�����

A couple refused to pay an architecture firm for design sketches of their holiday home because they didn’t like them.

Now they have been ordered by the Disputes Tribunal to pay the firm $33,000.

According to a recently released ruling from the tribunal, the couple employed a company to do architectural designs for the new build in 2021.

However, the relationship between the parties, whose names are redacted in the decision, soured when those designs were completed in February 2022.

The couple were disappointed with the sketches, which they claimed didn’t reflect the brief, including a lake view being blocked by a fireplace, and a pool outside what was meant to be a private master suite, among several other issues.

They did not pay a $25,000 invoice for the work when it was issued several months later.

The architectural firm took them to the tribunal earlier this year to reclaim the money it said it was owed.

The couple said there was no discussion in the contract they signed about what would happen if they were unhappy with the design work.

That contract also mentions that 50% of the initial fee would go towards the construction and consent drawings needed to build a house.

The couple interpreted this to mean that the base fee for the drawings was only $12,500, while the company categorised it as a kind of discount against future design work.

The company said it would not make sense for a client to be happy with a design and then move on to a different architect.

The main point of contention between the parties was about what a design sketch entailed. The customers assumed there would be some natural back and forth as they hashed out what would work for them.

However, the company said that further iterations of the design would incur further fees.

Tribunal referee Sarah Simmonds said she saw the couple’s point of view that any client would be reluctant to move forward with more work if they were unhappy with the designs.

However, she was satisfied that, if a further meeting had gone ahead between the parties, they would have been able to hash out a satisfactory design.

“It was clear to me that the design [the company] created did not match the picture [the couple] had in their own minds for how the house would be, and they were understandably disappointed,” Simmonds said.

“This is one of the challenges but also part of the purposes in engaging an architect. They take the brief and build a design based on it. Sometimes, this initially creates a design that is not expected by the client.”

She found that the company had considered the brief carefully and did not have an opportunity to remedy it to the couple’s wishes. Overall, she found that it was ultimately the couple who decided to end the working relationship.

“The breakdown of the relationship was due to actions by [the couple]. Although disappointed with the sketch design, they could and should have further discussed this with [the company] rather than purporting to end the contract between them.

“There was some acknowledgment by them that $12,500 might be due to be paid, yet they made no payment at all.”

Simmonds ordered the couple to pay the company $28,750, which was $25,000 plus 15% GST. She also ordered them to pay $1913 in legal costs, which would have been higher if not for the tribunal’s $30,000 award cap.

However, interest on the unpaid invoice was $3977, which was not covered by the cap. Simmonds ordered that this be paid on top of the design fee and legal costs.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū, covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for ��һ�ǿ����� since 2022.