I must disagree with Rachel Barnes’ piece (10 July, page 49) about architect–client agreement forms
Rachel begins her column by stating that the RIBA “agreed to include a ‘no set-off’ clause when it redrafted its ‘dangerous’ [sic] client agreement forms”. It was Rachel herself (7 December, page 57) who said the RIBA 2007 standard appointment form was dangerous.
Rachel then confuses the process of set-off with the practice of how set-off is to be managed in contracts. The Construction Act deals only with the practice; it does not prevent the exclusion of set off.
Finally, she states that no set-off “is just the sort of thing that irritates clients”. In my experience, it only irritates clients who later seek to evade payment.
Stephen Yakeley advises the council of the Association of Consultant Architects on contracts