project is worth £1200 - website design was presented just over a month ago and part rejected - three new designs have been submitted but client will not meet to discuss just advises he does not like the designs - I have asked for an explanation as to why the designs are being rejected and suggested he agree to complete the project within a further 30 days.
I'd like to know what is a reasonable timeframe for a client to respond and to find if they are obliged to give a reason for rejecting work
When I sign out the system says there is an answer but when I sign back in I can't see one - has the question been answered?
Did the client provide a spec? Have you complied with that spec?
yes the sticking point is that they don't like the design but won't say why or advise what they do want - I was commissioned to build a new site by the 15th December as their current hosting was too expensive and they could not make changes to the site but they appear to have either renewed or found other hosting as the deadline is no longer an issue for them - I am sure the design issue is simply to try to get rid of me without paying now they no longer need a new site - my query though is less about this specific case than a general one - we used to produce expensive websites for large companies and had a contract with a 7 day response requirement - we lost a lot of business a couple of years ago and have built the business up again mainly from small businesses - none of these will sign a contract and we lose a few as they lose interest usually when they are asked to provide images or write something for their site - I wanted to know what a small claims court would see as a reasonable time to respond and if we are bound to keep making changes even though no reason is given - we did go to court a few years ago when we started out - our solicitors said we had a cast iron case but the judge decided that the client who took us to court could take as long as they liked to make decisions and keep asking for as many specific design changes as they wanted as we hadn't presented the finished design prior commission - I am hoping that was a bad judgement as our solicitor at the time felt and not a general rule.
So they have had the site for a month before saying they don't like it?
they approved the structure of the site verbally and asked for changes to colours and fonts and to content on the home page - I have submitted 3 more designs each on the live site but the only response is to say they don't like the revised design - they are asking me to change their corporate colours as part of this which was not part of the brief - they are now saying the site was always commissioned to be easy to use but it is and follows a standard ecommerce format
they had already seen the structure as they liked a site I produced for a client of theirs and agreed to the same format
Ok -I agree with you.
Having it for a month is unreasonable.
If there were any bugs they should really have been notified up to a week after
A month later either shows they didnt look or not actually that bothered.
So yes they need to consider a reasonable time. What is reasonable is a matter for the Judge.
But I consider they have waited too long
Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?
no that is great thanks