In 2011 a London-based architect was been found guilty of serious professional incompetence and reprimanded after an Architects Registration Board (Arb) investigation.
At a hearing of the Architects Registration Board’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) on 15 and 16 November 2011, the architect was found guilty of serious professional incompetence and issued with a reprimand.
One allegation was a failure to carry out the work with due skill, care and diligence in relation to the planning process, building contract negotiation, snagging and the appointment of a structural engineer. The Committee found that, although planning took longer than anticipated, any delay was largely attributable [to] planning objections. The architect had suggested a JCT and JCT minor works contract, and it was permissible for her to decline her client’s request to negotiate a one-off contract with the builder. The Committee considered that the architect’s responsibility was limited to suggesting an appropriate contract and dealing with the points within it, and so found this allegation unproved.
Another allegation was that the architect failed to have in place appropriate and effective internal procedures to deliver an effective and efficient service. On consideration, the Committee took into account that whilst there were numerous site meetings throughout the project, no notes of such meetings were produced. Further, whilst no issue had been found with the level of personnel as dealt with in the first allegation, the Committee noted that an effective and efficient service cannot be delivered if the client cannot contact the architect with reasonable ease. This allegation was found proved.
Another allegation was that the architect failed to carry out the work without undue delay and within the time scale and cost limit specified in the letter of appointment. The Committee found that the timetable set out in the letter of appointment was unrealistic, and that the architect failed to manage her client’s expectations. No amendments were made to the timescale or cost estimate as set out in the original letter of appointment, and that timescale was greatly exceeded. This allegation was found proved.
Another allegation concerned the failure to keep the clients informed of the progress of work and of issues which may have affected its quality or cost. The Committee again noted that while there had been numerous site meetings, no notes of those meetings or progress reports existed. This allegation was also found proved.
The final allegation was that the architect had failed to deal with the client’s complaint appropriately. This allegation was found proved, in that they failed to respond to the client’s letter of complaint within 30 days and also failed to inform the client that they could contact the ARB.
The Committee decided that cumulatively, the proved allegations amounted to serious professional incompetence. In considering the penalty, the Committee took account (among other matters) of the fact that the architect had delivered a successful scheme and that there was little prospect of a recurrence of the failings.
In light of these facts, the Committee determined that the appropriate sanction was a reprimand.
BD online: LINK
ARB News: LINK
