Professional Conduct Committee reprimands architect after a finding of unacceptable professional conduct

Professional Conduct Committee reprimands architect after a finding of unacceptable professional conduct (29/01/2008)

At a Hearing of the Architects Registration Board’s Professional Conduct Committee in Edinburgh on 16 & 17 January 2008, architect Dakers Fleming of Partners in Planning Architecture and Design, Fife, Scotland, was issued with a reprimand after being found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.

After being appointed as the architect to design an extension to a converted mill in 2002, Mr Fleming proposed a plan that made the extension as part of a bridge structure to be built over the river adjoining the mill. It was alleged that by failing to appreciate the cost of such an extension he was acting beyond his technical competence; that he failed adequately to control the budget of the project, and failed to keep his client updated on the progress of the work.

The Committee was told that Mr Fleming was given a budget of £100,000 at the onset of the project, a fact that was denied by the architect. Mr Fleming also denied that he had failed to give his client a breakdown of the costs.

After considering evidence from both the architect and the complainant, the Committee agreed with the architect’s assertions that he had not been given a budget and that the potential cost of the bridge was never established. Mr Fleming was found to be not guilty of acting beyond his technical competence.

The Committee did find that he had failed to keep minutes of meetings, failed to notify his client of the costs of the project and been at fault for delays in the tendering process. In doing so he had failed to manage his professional work responsibly and with regard to the interests of his client, and was in breach of Standard 11 of the Architects Code of Conduct.

In its decision, the Committee noted that while a breach of the Code of Conduct would not necessarily result in a finding of unacceptable professional conduct, the cumulative failings of Mr Fleming in this case did. The finding was, however, at the less serious end of the scale, and the appropriate penalty was a reprimand.