Pro Arkitects

Dear Mr Steeles.
Thank you for taking the time to review us, and we are obviously disappointed that you have left us a 1-star review.

As you have alluded to, you have submitted a complaint which is ongoing, and therefore it would be unprofessional of us to comment in detail here. However for transparency for future clients, we will provide a brief response.

As you have stated, you had a consultation with one of our consultants, and they didn’t comment on budget or guarantee your project could be done within your budget. The consultant outlined our services and answered your questions. Following this, you appointed us to produce architectural drawings and seek planning permission. You were charged 40% of your claimed amount, and we proceeded to produce drawings to your satisfaction, and successfully gained planning permission for you. Our architectural technologist liaised with you throughout these stages.

After planning consent was granted, you were consulted regarding structural engineering, and quantity surveying & tendering. You wished to proceed with these additional services, and you were invoiced accordingly. Structural engineer’s design and calculation were sought and provided to you. These are required by Building Control, and will be needed regardless of who constructs the loft conversion.

Your project was quantity surveyed, and you had a meeting with our project manager to refine your requirements and finishing. During this meeting, you asked us to tender your project to contractors on our nationwide panel. This was done successfully, with two quotes being received during the tender period. We acknowledged that the quotes provided by contractors were above your budget, and have advised you accordingly on how to proceed.

We are disappointed to read your review, and are dealing with your complaint. Until your complaint is resolved, we feel it would inappropriate to comment further at this time. We note your observation of other disgruntled reviews, and we reassure all parties reading this that all negative reviews or comments have been investigated and any complaints resolved or settled. Following resolution, clients have been requested to update their reviews, however we acknowledge that some remain not updated.

Kind Regards,
Pro Arkitects - Design & Build Experts

Dear Mr Bartley,

Thank you for your review and feedback. As you will be aware, this matter has been discussed at length following your planning application, and this matter being concluded. We are therefore disappointed that you have left a one star review. We are also disappointed that this review has been published 5 months after this matter was resolved.

Firstly, I would like to correct your statement of paying £3500 for the architectural drawings. I can see from our records that you were invoiced £179 (+VAT) for the 3D laser scan survey, and £1295 (+VAT) for the architectural design of rear extension and loft conversion.

You were also invoiced £695 (+VAT) for the preparation, submission and handling of the planning permission, with the council submission fee being included. Due to your location, the council advised a nutrient neutrality assessment was required to accompany the application, and you were therefore invoiced £1095 (+VAT) for a third party specialist to undertake this assessment. As I am sure you will acknowledge, we have no control over these external charges/fess.

As you will be aware, you had an initial consultation with a senior consultant and a senior architectural technologist to establish the project, and your requirements, so that a fee proposal could be provided. Some initial notes were taken based on your design thoughts, and these were electronically recorded for use if you proceeded with our services. Following your acceptance of the proposal, a technician attended to undertake the 3D laser scan survey, with the technician taking further notes and re-established your requirements and ideas. These secondary notes were cross referenced with the original notes to establish if there were any additions or discrepancies. We therefore dispute you accusation that our internal notes were lost, as all of our notes are electronically stored, and your drawings were produced in accordance with the collected notes.

Based on both sets of notes, a set of preliminary drawings were produced, with your architectural designer seeking further clarification of your desired internal layout, to ensure that you were 100% happy with the design. This is part of the amendment stage, where you (like all of our clients) are able to make any amendments to the preliminary design to complete their vision.

If any indicative time line was provided by our team, it would have been clear that it is only a guideline, and may be subject to change. You would have been advised during our technicians visit that the architectural drawings would take 4-6 weeks (at time of survey). You were also advised that the planning department take 3-4 months to review applications, but that Maidstone Borough Council were still impacted by delays caused by COVID-19 and therefore this 3-4 months guideline may vary.

You were notified that the planning application was submitted and we provided you with the relevant details and references. Due to a technical error with our system and the planning portal, the penultimate set of drawings were incorrectly uploaded and submitted with the planning application. This was immediately noticed and rectified by our team, with the correct final drawings being uploaded, and also sent to the council and assigned planning officer directly. Unfortunately, the council didn’t update their public planning portal, and therefore you queried why the wrong set of drawings were submitted. You were advised of the glitch and that this had been rectified, and you were informed that we would contact the council regarding their portal not being updated.

Following consistent emails and phone calls, the council acknowledged receipt of the correct drawings 5-6 weeks after validating the application. The assigned planning officer also contacted us to discuss your project and highlighted concerns. The planning officer confirmed that both sets of drawings had been reviewed by herself, and that both the penultimate and final proposals would not receive officer support due to the extent of the extension (side/rear, and loft conversion) being proposed, and the subsequent impact on the host dwelling and surrounding countryside.

Upon further consultation with the planning officer, it was firmly established that the council’s overriding view was that the extension was too prominent and not subservient to the original dwelling, and subsequently the application would be recommended for refusal. However, the planning officer provided the option of continuing with the application to receive a refusal decision, or withdrawing the application and revising the design/proposal. At your request, the application was withdrawn and you provided your ideas and thoughts for a redesign.

As the proposal needed to be significantly redesigned to adhere to your ideas and the council guidelines, it is therefore considered a new scheme and separate from the original scheme and design. You were advised that revising the design/scheme would incur additional design fees to cover labour time. Due to the amendment only being required to the proposed drawings (existing drawings still being applicable), you were offered a discounted price.

As the application was withdrawn at your request, and had been validated by the council planning department, you were informed that no refunds can be sought from the council for the planning fees, and therefore you would be charged for a new planning application.

Even though the withdrawal was actioned at your request, you refused to pay the fees for a new planning application, and demanded we pay the fees at a financial loss to ourselves. You also demanded that the final set of drawings should be resubmitted, and you were advised (again) that the planning officer had reviewed both sets of drawings, and the final set of drawings would be refused if submitted again.

You later emailed stating you wished to no longer work with us and requested a refund of the nutrient neutrality assessment and the planning application. You were advised that the nutrient neutrality assessment had been conducted and you were provided with a copy of the report. Again, we informed you that the council planning fees are non-refundable once the application has been validated by the council. We also advised that any request for a refund for our services would not be approved in accordance with the conditions for refunds set out in our Terms & Conditions.

We are sorry to have received your review and feedback, especially given our previous communications to resolve this issue. We hope that this clarifies everything, however should you still have questions, then please contact us directly.

We look forward to being able to assist you with any future projects.

Kind Regards,
Customer Services
Pro Arkitects - Design & Build Experts