Yes it was - he was rude and surley, I emailed him later that day to refrain
from calling and outline his grievance in writing.
My feeling is that this dispute over the website is just a screen to get at me, personally etc.
He chose to start this over something very minor, which culminated in him turning down a job (printing) that I sent to his business. His words were he no longer wanted my business to be a supplier to his business, he failed to check his figures first and if he had would have realised that my business is more of a client than a supplier has we had given his business 25K worth of business in the last 18 months with his business giving my business 9K (design work), so talk about cutting your nose of etc, anyway.
See below a copy of the letter sent recorded delivery.
RE: R&R Display Website
Dear Mr White
Further to our telephone conversation on Monday, listed below are points for your consideration, which outlines the situation as it stands.
1. I have reviewed the paper work and only my quote mentions producing the site as a CMS site as an addition, the R&R purchase order and my subsequent invoice does not itemise the production of a CMS style site as part of the project, so you have not been billed for this. The invoice was approved, signed off and paid during January 2012, so if R&R were not satisfied with the finished website, which was approved before our invoice was submitted to R&R, why was this issue not raised at the time?
2. Your purchase order for the amount in question was received after initial discussions with Mr Smith regarding the structure of the site, during these discussions it was agreed that a CMS style site was not the best way to achieve the required result and the extra cost would be to cover the further work and development involved to create a more stylised website and future updates and any changes that maybe required. So the site was created and maintained as instructed in our discussions with Mr Smith. There is no other reason why we would have done otherwise.
3. If you therefore maintain that R&R expected the site to be a CMS site, we point to the fact that over the last 14 months R&R have not requested log-in details, advice or enquired on how to gain access to the site to be able to edit in-house via a CMS system, in fact over the last 14 months instructions were given to Priory Graphics by Mr Smith to make changes and additions to the site, which we carried out without further charges to R&R, because these changes came under our agreement made with the consent of Mr Smith. If Mr Smith maintains that we didn’t have any discussions about the site not being a CMS site or any agreement to make further changes to the site in the future etc, then we have to question why would Mr Smith on several occasions instruct Priory Graphics to make said changes to the site and not do this yourselves via a CMS system or even enquire how to do this via a CMS system, if it was thought this was in place?
4. At no point have Priory Graphics denied you access to the master files, and we have offered to move the working site to a hosting supplier of your choice, this offer still stands, but without a clear final objective from yourselves, as per our emails on Monday 18th February, we cannot move forward to try and resolve the situation as we have no brief from the original discussions regarding the functionality of a CMS style site as mentioned early as this was never discussed.
We hope this clarifies the situation.