They had a tight original budget of �230,000 for the building of the property. Their architect came up with an unusual design and both he and the builders said that it could be built within this budget. At the end the building cost �380,000 - an overspend of �150,000 which put the clients in a very tight financial squeeze to the point where they even put the property on the market to sell. They were hurt because the end result was a 'project' for the architect and a 'good earner' for the builder, neither of whom seemed even remotely concerned about the overspend. Put simply, had the architect and builder been more honest with the original estimates ( you can't underestimate by �150,000 on a three bedroom house of that size! ) then the clients would not have gone with the architects fancy design but would have built something less ambitious and more within their budget - it looked as though the architect used his clients and their money ( borrowed! ) to see his unique design come to life rather than consider the impact - financially and emotionally - a huge overspend would have on his clients. The couple also admitted that they were 'not yet out of the woods financially' and I suspect that if going for the architects design means they cannot now afford to stay there, they will have lost out on a fantastic plot which, at �35,000, seemed a godsend for them with their tight budget.
Hope this wasn't too wordy and helps!