Decision in the case of ARB v R— L—




Mr Peter Verdin, chairing the Professional Conduct Committee

 

Mr Cadman Footnote has withdrawn the allegations under particulars (a) Footnote which leaves us to deal with parts (b) Footnote and (c) Footnote of the charge.

We have come to the conclusion that the allegation under particular (b) which is a failure to respond properly or at all to correspondence of the procedure of the board does not amount in this case to unacceptable professional conduct. We are only dealing with one letter that was sent to him and which in fact, it has been suggested by [R— L—], is one which does not merit or request an answer. And it appears that that letter was part of a debate between [R— L—] and the Board and that we cannot accept that there was a failure to respond.

This leaves us with allegation (c). Now I don’t propose to repeat the general points which have been made in the case of [J— L—]. That is now a matter of public record. But we will address ourselves to this case, the points made by [R— L—] and of course points (b) and (c).

It is clear that [R— L—] has engaged in a protracted correspondence with the board which has been based upon a misconception of the law, and a point of principle which he appears only to have adopted in 2004.

The picture which emerges from the way in which [R— L—] refused to provide information to the board is of someone who has pursued a so-called point of principle in an unreasonable fashion which has involved ARB and therefore the architects as a whole in considerable expense and also a waste of resources of ARB.

We have made it clear that we see that ARB has obligations to monitor compliance with its insurance requirements. And it could be said that it has done so in a reasonably relaxed fashion and in a way which is not onerous on the profession. We have already decided on the legality of this and it is not for us to enter into the politics.

[R— L—] has referred to section 13(4) of the Act and I don’t intend to repeat what has been said in the [J— L—] case about this section, except to say, that for the reasons which we gave in that case, there is a misinterpretation of the meaning of the words quoted and the way in which [R— L—] relies upon them.

That is our decision.

 

 

Sentence in the case of ARB v R— L—


 

Mr Peter Verdin, chairing the Professional Conduct Committee

As I said in our decision, we take a serious view of the act of unacceptable professional conduct, which we found proved in respect of point (c).

We are concerned with [R— L—]’s attitude. It appears to us that he has jumped onto a bandwagon which he has turned into a vendetta against the board, and that his behaviour has gone beyond what is reasonable. It is not the case of someone who has acted on a point of principle at the start of the legislation of parliament or requirements.

We are not convinced that [R— L—] has acted on a genuine point of grievance. We obtain a picture of a course of action of attempting to wreck the right course of actions of the board.

In the circumstances we have decided that you will be fined the sum of £1,000 to be paid.

[back]

 

NB. This is an unofficial transcript.  the official transcript of the proceedings is available from Harry Counsell