Hi there,
In today’s post I tell you how the story of the architect who stole 1230 euros from us and was sentenced by the arbitration court to pay us 2460 euros in damages continues.
Here is the first part of the post:
We had agreed that my lawyer was going to send the letter to the architect to request the return of the money he had charged.
In the letter the lawyer gave him 10 working days to do the work or to return the money.
A few days later the lawyer wrote to me so that we could talk personally about the architect’s situation.
It turned out that the architect had not responded to the letter but had called my lawyer on the phone to tell her again all the many stories he had already told in his emails.
Furthermore, he told my lawyer that he had charged a price “so cheap” because we had begged him to give us a discount.
That’s how unfortunate this guy is that he even went to tell lies to my lawyer.
Moreover, it is very curious that after having threatened to denounce us with his “legal team”, it turns out that none of the lawyers of this supposed legal team had been able to respond to the letter. This made me think that he did not even have the money to pay for a lawyer.
The new story was that in February when the Simplex Law came out, he realized that it would be more favorable for us to legalize the house according to this law and right there in February he made an appointment to go to the Municipal Chamber with all the documentation on June 15, 2024.
Then he had been in training with the Municipal Chamber and when he returned on March 13 was when he responded to our email.
Logically, all this is a lie because if it were true, he would have informed his clients.
It should also be noted that he did not send my lawyer the receipt of this supposed appointment he had made at the Municipal Chamber.
My lawyer asked me what I wanted to do.
I told her to ask for proof of the appointment showing on what date he made the appointment and if it was really for our process.
In any case, I was going to move forward with the complaint against the architect since he had to compensate me for all the time he had wasted.
I knew that everything was a lie and that it was just another story to gain time and surely when June 15 arrived, another one of his supposed tragedies would happen.
On May 17, an architect came to make an estimate for the legalization of the house since I needed it to be able to quantify the amount of the compensation that I would ask for at the time of suing him.
This architect told me that if there really was a cartographic record from the 1940’s in which the total structure of the house appeared, it was not even necessary to prepare any documentation, it would simply be necessary to update the measurements of the property in all the documents.
My lawyer was waiting for the architect to send her this proof of the appointment, but as I knew it was all a lie, on May 21, I reported him to the Ordem dos Arquitectos, CICAP (consumer’s office) and IMPIC.
A few days later the lawyer sent me a screenshot of an SMS with an appointment for June 13, but it did not say what the process was or when the appointment had been requested.
Knowing that this man is a mythomaniac, I personally wrote to the Municipal Chamber to ask if the architect had made an appointment for June 13 to bring the documentation for the legalization process of my house. On June 6 I received the reply and there was no appointment made regarding my house. Once again, this man had lied to buy time.
I was then waiting to be contacted by one of the agencies before which I had filed the claims and for my lawyer to prepare the action to be filed in court.
I was summoned to go to trial at CICAp on August 1, 2024.
Four days before this date, the architect’s lawyer appeared to say that she was going to be on vacation that week and that they should change the date.
Logically, I objected but the jurist decided to change the date to September 11, 2024.
On that day I was going to be traveling and unlike the architect’s lawyer, I sent the proof of my vacation.
As we were going to lose a lot of time until the trial was rescheduled, I took the opportunity to contact the Municipal Chamber again to ask them if the architect José Carlos Costa had really made the supposed meeting of July 10, 2023, and if these cartographic records from the 40’s really existed.
If the Municipal Chamber did not have records of that meeting and of those alleged cartographic records, we would no longer be talking about a breach of contract, but of a swindle.
On August 29 I went to be heard at the Ordem dos Arquitectos.
The architect had previously gone to testify and the excuse for not delivering the documentation was that I did not give him the certidão and that I did not respond to one of his e-mails.
He said he would send all the evidence, but even that day he had not sent it. The architect Marla Ribeiro (in charge of this consultation process) told me that in her professional opinion what the architect Sergio Carvalho had told us is true; that the house can only be legalized through demolition because the law says that there has to be a part of the land that is a waterproofing area (area without construction) and in my house there is practically none.
On September 18, 2024, we went to the trial at CICAP.
The architect’s lawyer presented the defense only that day and among the documents there was an alleged appointment of June 13, but it was not clear when the appointment had been made. In addition, they attached some plans that were not those of my house, but those of the neighbor’s house.
The judge asked if there was any possibility of conciliation and the architect’s lawyer said that he was offering to return 200 euros, which was a ridiculous amount.
We went immediately to the trial in which both lawyers and the same judge asked questions to both parties.
The judge again and again cut us off because he said that everything we were saying was already in the documentation provided.
Basically, what was done was to talk about the “permanent certidão” which is the architect’s excuse for one year later not having deigned to submit the documentation. It was quite clear that he had promised to ask for this document and in the end, he did not request it.
I thought that the trial was going to be very clear, but I left with doubts since the judge had not allowed anyone to speak and the only thing that could be done was to answer yes or no.
In addition, the architect’s lawyer instead of focusing on defending him, what she had tried from the beginning was to refute the territorial competence of CICAP and then also tried to have the complaint dismissed since only I was the plaintiff and Diego was the witness. Supposedly we were both supposed to be plaintiffs.
The judge said it would take 15 days to issue the judgment and it was clear that if I won, the architect’s lawyer would try to challenge it.
On September 23, 2024, I sent an email to CICAP to notify that the plans that the architect had delivered as a defense were not from my house but from the neighbor’s house.
On October 7, the judgment arrived, and justice was finally done. I won the trial, and the arbitration court ordered the architect to return the 1230 euros and to pay me 1230 euros more in patrimonial and non-patrimonial damages.
I immediately sent the sentence to the Ordem dos Arquitectos so that they could proceed to penalize the architect accordingly.
Upon receipt of the judgment, the defendant has 60 days to try to annul the judgment. As it is a small amount of money they cannot appeal it, they can only try to annul it.
My lawyer told me that we should wait 10 days and then she would contact the architect’s lawyer to demand payment.
On October 17 my lawyer contacted the architect’s lawyer to demand payment of the 2.460 euros.
I immediately received a communication from CICAP stating that the architect’s lawyer supposedly had problems with her email and that the judgment was being sent by certified mail. As you can see, one more excuse to gain time and delay the payment.
On October 18 the architect’s lawyer was notified by mail, and she kept lying to my lawyer that she had not received anything.
The deadline for appealing the judgment was November 20, and if they had not paid or appealed the judgment by that date, we would have to enter into an executory proceeding to demand payment in court.
On November 19 the bank transfer of the 2,460 euros arrived.
You can’t imagine the weight off my shoulders since I would no longer have to go forward with an enforcement process to ask for the payment of the money in court.
Thus, the chapter of the swindle of the architect José Carlos Costa of Urbenco Green is finally closed.