Skip main navigation and go to content

Professional Conduct Committee Decisions

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER OF

DOUGLAS BRANSON (053488I)

on

27 May2009

Cliffords Inn Conference Centre
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1LD

Present:

Chairman: Peter Verdin
PCC Member: Linda Read
PCC Member: Donal Hutchinson

Ms Nicola Hill appeared as Clerk to the Committee

Mr John Williams of Bankside Law appeared on behalf of the Board

Mr Branson did not attend the hearing and was not represented

CHARGE

The charge is that the architect is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in respect of the following allegations:

  1. that he failed to maintain adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance from 25 April 2008 to 13 February 2009
  2. that he failed to provide evidence of professional indemnity insurance to demonstrate compliance with Standard 8(3) of the Code
  3. that he failed to provide a substantive reply or to procure a substantive reply to correspondence from the Board in letters dated 25 April 2008, 24 June 2008, 21 August 2008, 12 November 2008 and email 22 July 2008

DECISION

CHAIRMAN:  In this case Mr Branson is charged with unacceptable professional conduct.  There were three allegations against him, two of which were in the alternative.  Firstly, that he failed to maintain adequate and appropriate Professional Indemnity Insurance in accordance with the appropriate standard.  The second, which is the alternative to the first, is that he failed to provide evidence of Professional Indemnity Insurance in the form required by the Board, and as requested by the Architect’s Registration Board in various letters which had been sent to him.  And the third charge is that he failed to provide a substantive reply or to procure a substantive reply to further letters from the Board, which are listed in the charges against him.

We find it proved that he did fail to provide evidence of Professional Indemnity Insurance.  One might assume from the fact that he had failed to provide such evidence that he did not have it, but it is quite clear that he failed to provide that evidence, and we find that issue of fact proved, and we also find that he did not provide any substantive replies to correspondence from the Board.  These matters amount to unacceptable professional conduct.  Not only has he displayed an apparent disregard for need for Professional Indemnity Insurance, but he has shown a complete contempt for his regulatory body in failing to reply to their letters, even when he had been told that the matter would be referred to the Investigation Committee, and even when he had been told that the Investigation Committee would refer the matter to this Committee.

In the circumstances, and we do note that whilst Mr Branson is not present today, he has been told that the Committee can go ahead with the matter if he doesn’t attend, and that the Committee may indeed impose a sanction of erasure from the Register.  We have heard nothing from Mr Branson, and in the circumstances we consider that the appropriate penalty is erasure from the Register, and his name will be erased from the register.

Back