Jack Smyer Architect AIA

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
First, we are not paying for meetings that did not occur We previously delneated dates of meetings that absolutely did not occur Secondly,
Mr*** suddenly realized after months that we were over the 50% rule We advised Mr*** from the beginning that we currenlty have property taxes on the home of $per year and wanted to keep the taxes close to that or it would not be worth it to remodel the home We asked Mr*** in the beginning if a costal permit was required and he said it was not After receiving the first payment, he decides to check with coastal commission, meaning that he could charge for revisions becauase he purposely midled us into thinking our project was being done to our specifications and within the tax perimeters we requested See email below He lied when he quoted that the project was "feet" over and needed little revision Per the email copied below from Mr***, the project was lin ft over!!!!!
Mr*** has a propensity for lying and trying to make it appear that he has just made simple errors requiring revisions, i.echargable revisions which went over the $10,in the contract among other things If the overage was ft., we possibly could have finished this project, but Mr***'s batant disregard for the truth made it impossible We certainly would not have had a problem with a ftoverage We are not unreasonable people What Mr*** committed is fraud with respect to the billing and to the project in general
Anything other than a refund is unacceptable and will force us to seek further legal remedy with the D.A.'s office
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: *** ***
Date: August 12, at 7:40:AM PDT
To: *** *** , ***arc ***
Subject: Minor Coastal Development Permit
Reply-To: *** ***
Good Morning *** & ***;
I had a chance to review the changes we are proposing ( see attached exhibit) on the exterior walls
The City allow us a max change of 50% to the existing exterior walls
Before we would be required to get the Minor Coastal Development Permit
The existing house has a total of linftof exterior wall
50% would allow only linft of wall change
We are proposing linft( lin ftover)
If we stay as designed we will need to apply for the permitThe Mr*** *** @ the planning counter felt it would take months
He didn't see any issues with the project & felt it would be approvedBut that if we do exceed the 50% we will be required to apply
The only other choice we have, is to reduce our exterior wall changes
The easiest change I could find would be for us to leave the garage's exterior walls ( West & North walls) as is
What would you like to do?
***
PS please feel free to call me
***
Regards,
*** ***

Review: Architect ignored our specifications and in turn billed for many changes that were only necessary because he did what he wanted to, rather than what we specified with written descriptions and photos. Further, the first bill we unfortunately paid, has many erroneous charges, e.g. billing to meet with the city 5/10/2014 (a Saturday!!! Called and verified with [redacted] at the city that there were no meetings that day as the city is not open on Saturdays), billing for meetings that did not occur 5/8/2014, 7/28/2014 just to name a few. Needless to say, after issues with not paying attention to what we wish to design and his refusal to work with our contractor, he terminated our contract. He then forwarded yet another bill for 1 1/2 weeks work at another $3491.50. Again in this bill there are erroneous charges e.g. meeting 8/11/2014, that did not occur. We offered to close the matter and not pay the bill. Architect told us to go ahead and take action against him.Desired Settlement: We would like a refund of meetings that never occurred etc., we would settle on dropping last bill in lieu of pressing fraud charges against the architect.

Business

Response:

September 1,2014

Revdex.com

4747 Viewridge Ave #2OO

San Diego Ca 92123-1688

Re: complaint ID # [redacted]

To Whom This May Concern:

I am in receipt or a complaint issue by Mr.& Mrs. [redacted]

[redacted].

In their complaint, it appears there are just five (5) basic

items of contention, that are as follows;

Ignoring their specification,

Mtg. 5/10/14, (bill for but never occurred)

Mtgs. 5/8 & 7/28/14 (bill for but never occurred)

Mtg. 8/11/14 (bill for but never occurred)

8/17/14 Termination or our agreement (How did that

occur)

Their offer to close this matter.

In response to Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] complaints, I have

listed below a project time line from the signing of the

agreement (4/9/14 ) to when Mrs. [redacted]s terminated it (

8/7/14). That just highlights the issues that Ms. [redacted]

raised. (Hopefully once you review this information you will

get clearer understanding or what really occurred.)

4/9/14:

The dated our agreement began we use a standard small

project B105 agreement. We agree to provide a builder

set (just enougn to get a building permit). For a two

story addition to an existing single family home.

The information, scope of work & direction came from

both the [redacted]s via e-mail & photo examples . As well

as from their project representative [redacted] their interior

designer at that time. She had already met personally with

the [redacted] 4 their contractor on site. She then shared

with me via e-mail, phone calls and a site meeting. The

[redacted] project requirements/ specifications.

5/8/14; (5/8/14 & 5/10/14 disputed charges)

I had two meeting on that day (5/8/14). One where I met

[redacted] on site (our billing indicated it occurred on the

10th. eut really Occur on the 8th). At this meeting we

walk. the site & interior or the building. And reviewed the

program requirements or the project.

My second meeting that day. Was with the City of

Carlsbad's Planning department counter. To verify if there

were any major Planning or Zoning issues for this site.

While the our invoices #[redacted] did not correctly indicate

these dates. The tasks were performed to the benefit of

their project.

5/14/14:

We forward two (2) second floor addition/remodel design

schemes AA & BB to [redacted] for her review comment. As

well as to make sure they satisfied the [redacted]s program

information. She then forward the schemes on to the

[redacted]s. ( not sure the exact date that occrred).

5/16/14

E-mail 0ur first invoice #[redacted] to the [redacted]s.

5/21/14

Mrs. [redacted] express how unhappy they were. Stating that

we did not follow their wishes or directions. So in an

effort to resolve this issue. We decided it would be best

to just to credit all the time spent on the two(2) two

story design schemes ($2,205.00). As a good faith

effort.

7/14/14

Site meeting with the [redacted]s there contractor [redacted]

([redacted] was not present). At this meeting the [redacted]s

decide to make a change in the direction of the project.

By changing to a single story addition/remodel. We were

then given approval to move forward with this new single

story design scheme.

7/15-27/14

During this time frame. we provided design schemes & she

gave us direction on what they wanted, they liked and didn't

like.

7/24/14 + 7/28/14 ( 7/28/14 disputed charges )

This was time spent on the phone and e-mailing with their

contractor to review the project issues/ concerns.

8/4/14

E-mail our second invoice #7860 to Mrs. [redacted].

8/7/14:

Mr. 4 Mrs. [redacted]s met me at my office.

To reviewed the following:

The one story floor plans.

Front yard setbacks, issue (existing non conforming)

New exterior elevations

Our 8/4/14 invoice.

The [redacted]s approved the new design, except for a few

changes to the interior floor plan and Front exterior

elevation . They gave us approval to keep moving forward.

They were not Interested in reviewing our last invoice.

Even though I offered to review it with them.

8/8/14:

E-mail the [redacted]s a list of all the changes they

requested at out meeting. Receive an e-mail, agreeing this

was the list of all the changes they like to make.

8/11/14

We e-mail Ms. [redacted] the updated drawing showing the

changes to the exterior elevations & floor plans. She email

us back with their approval to keep moving forward.

( 8/11/14 disputed charges)

To double check that our finial design scheme is in

compliance's with the city ordinances. I met with Mr. [redacted]

Fisher,( City of Carlsbad Planner ® the city's counter)

reviewed the final design scheme together. He

reminded me, that if we are proposing to demo or move

more than 50% of the existing exterior walls. We will be

required to obtain a Minor Coastal development permit (

MCDP).

I also met with Ms. [redacted] at the engineering

counter, she stated: That we will be required to add the

existing site topographical contours to our site plan. She

provided me with a xerox copy of a topographical contour

map the city had on file.

8/12/14:

e-mail Ms. [redacted] to make her aware of my meetings with

the city. As well as the 50% wall removal requirement.

That I need time to verify if our scheme exceeded the

50% removal or not.

8/14/14:

e-mail soils consultant requesting a proposal.

e-mail Ms. [redacted]; That we were just 4.2 ft over the 50%

Mrs. [redacted] e-mail me to put everything on hold till they

decide what they want to do

Received e-mail for their contractor [redacted] stating that

he is now running the project.

e-mail Ms. [redacted], and share with her that our agreement

was not setup to allow [redacted] to direct this project.

8/15/14:

I e-mailed a scheme indicating the changes we need to

make to comply with the 50% rule. (I did this so the

[redacted]s could see exactly what the impact would be on

their project. I did this at my expenses and was never

billed to the [redacted]s).

e-mail Soils consultant, To canel our request for a soils

report proposal.

8/16/14:

l received e-mail for Mrs. [redacted], reminding me not to do

anything because the project was on hold.

8/17/14

Mr. [redacted] e-mail me to request copie& or all the

drawing,

(How our agreement was terminated)

Mr&. [redacted] e-mail me stating;

lf you wont let [redacted] run the project then we are done.

I accepted her request to terminate our agreement @1:58

pm.

8/18/14

We-mail Mrs. [redacted] All the drawing she req,~.~ested.

Mrs. [redacted] e-mail; requesting their retainer be returned. I

agree to return what was remaining after we bill for the

time spent from 8/1 to 8/14.

Mrs. [redacted] e-mail; Questioning the chimney location on

sheet A-201, we respond to her question.

Mrs. [redacted] e-mail; to remind us the project is still on

hold.

We e-mail Mrs. [redacted] our statement for work performed

From 8/1/14- 8/14/14

l receive an e-mail from Mrs. [redacted] concerning our last

two statements. We responded to her questions. We also

request that Mr. [redacted] call us to review their concerns.

( he never called or e-mail us).

9/2/14

received e-mail from Mrs. [redacted] about the many

discrepancies on our last two statements. That they will

be forced to purse action against [redacted] & myself.

I e-mail her back to request that we be fair to each

other & come to some type or agreement.

While unknown to me, she filed a complaint against my firm

with the Revdex.com. Even though I thought we were still trying

resolve this.

9/5/14:

E-mail Mrs. [redacted] three (3) possible ways to resolve our

differences.

She e-mail me back and inform me they are no longer

pursuing the project. For us to correct our statements

and resubmit them and they may consider it.

9/4/14:

E-mail Mrs. [redacted]; our last two statements, that I

reviewed them and found them to be correct.

As you can see from the project time line. There was NO

ignoring their directions or specifications. Nor were there

any erroneous billing going on. We tried everything we

could think or ( includin giving or free design work) to

help resolve the differences between us. But as you can

read she had no interests in working it out. Their offer to

waive our last statement & contested meeting is

unacceptable to me.

But if it will help resolve this issue. I will be more then

willing to remove $491.00 from Our last statement.

Please be aware my firm was founded in November 1984, in all those

29 years and many clients. We have had a grand total or of just two (2)

disputes. The last one was in 1988, and it was resolve to both parties

satisfactions. And now this one. We have made every attempt to help

resolve our differences. By waiving fees & responding to their

questions & concerns, but to no avail.

Please feel free to contact me by phone ( [redacted]) or e-mail, (

[redacted]) for any questions you may have. lf you like a

copy of any of our drawing, meeting notes or e-mails. Just let me

know I be nappy to provide them to you.

We do respectfully request their compliant be denied. For

the simple fact, there is no basis to their complaint. As well

as returrning our firm to a good standing with the

Revdex.com.

Sincerely,

[redacted] B [redacted] II

CC: File

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

First, we are not paying for meetings that did not occur. We previously delneated dates of meetings that absolutely did not occur. Secondly,

Mr. [redacted] suddenly realized after 4 months that we were over the 50% rule. We advised Mr. [redacted] from the beginning that we currenlty have property taxes on the home of $500 per year and wanted to keep the taxes close to that or it would not be worth it to remodel the home. We asked Mr. [redacted] in the beginning if a costal permit was required and he said it was not. After receiving the first payment, he decides to check with coastal commission, meaning that he could charge for revisions becauase he purposely midled us into thinking our project was being done to our specifications and within the tax perimeters we requested. See email below. He lied when he quoted that the project was "4.2 feet" over and needed little revision. Per the email copied below from Mr. [redacted], the project was 41.83 lin ft over!!!!!