Professional Conduct Committee Decisions

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER OF

JOHN DOWLAND (035283G)

on

29 July 2008

Cliffords Inn Conference Centre
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1LD

Present:

Chair: Peter Verdin
PCC Member: Barbara Saunders
PCC Member: Donal Hutchinson

Mr Stephen Battersby appeared as Clerk to the Committee
Mr John Williams of Bankside Law appeared on behalf of the Board
Mr Dowland attended the hearing and represented himself

Transcribed by Harry Counsell & Co.
Official Court Reporters
Clifford’s Inn, Fetter Lane. London EC4A 1LD
Tel: 0207 269 0370   Fax: 0207 405 9884

CHARGE

The charge is that the architect is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, individually or cumulatively, in relation to the following facts, and that is pursuant to Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(iii) of the Architect’s Act 1997.  The allegations of fact to support the charge are:

1. That he has failed to ensure that his finances are managed prudently and has displayed a wilful disregard of his responsibilities or a lack of integrity by failing to pay seven judgment debts (pursuant to Standard 9 of the Architects Code of Conduct)
2. That he was made Bankrupt by an order of Croydon Court on 11 September 2007 (pursuant to Standard 9 of the Code)
3. That he failed to notify the Board of the making of a Bankruptcy order of Croydon County Court within 28 days (pursuant to Standard 10.5 of the Code)

DECISION

CHAIRMAN:  We find that the facts in this matter are proved.  Indeed, they were all admitted.  I do not propose to go through the facts.  There are various County Court judgments, some of which have not been satisfied.  There is the bankruptcy of Mr. Dowland.  There is the failure to report that bankruptcy to the Architects Registration Board and there were his dealings with Mrs O.

What we had to decide was whether the facts amount in any way to unacceptable professional conduct.  It is quite clear that a professional man is expected to adhere to standards of responsibility and integrity which may not apply to somebody who is not a member of a profession.  It is really conduct which might be regarded as improper according to what you might call the consensus of professional or even judicial opinion and whether that can be stigmatised as being unacceptable, whether or not it violates the letter of any professional code.  It is the assessment of that conduct by members of the profession itself.

We have heard a story of financial irresponsibility, an ignoring of obligations to others and of dealings, for example, the transfer of the property to an off-shore company at a substantial undervaluation in respect of which we could regard as irresponsible.  I must say we certainly have a feeling that Mr. Dowland has been less than frank with us in his explanations of the transfer of the property to the offshore company. 

We must say that we regard these as conducts which cannot be expected of an architect.  You cannot promote the trust that there should be in a professional such as an architect.  You cannot do good to the reputation of the profession at large.  These may not be dealings of Mr. Dowland as an architect, but, as I say, standards of behaviour are expected of professional people which can be different to those of people who are not members of any profession. 

We have heard the story of Mrs. O and the allegations which Mr. Dowland made to the County Court in respect of Mrs. O alleging that she was part of a fraud where there was no substance of such an allegation.  These themselves cannot be regarded as honourable.

We have heard of the position of Mr. D.  It appears that he has disappeared.  It appears that he has been fraudulent.  We cannot overlook the irresponsible behaviour of Mr. Dowland in relation to his debts.  As I say, the failure to notify Mrs. O in respect of the Trustee in Bankruptcy, and the consequences of the transfer of that property at a substantial undervalue.  There seems to have been no attempt by Mr. Dowland to satisfy his obligations to other people.  For these reasons, we find that the facts as they are amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

We now need to consider what we have to do, Mr. Dowland.  You may wish to address us now in mitigation.

MR DOWLAND SPOKE IN MITIGATION

MR. VERDIN:  We have listened to everything you have said in mitigation.  We have considered your references and in the circumstances of this case there can only be one penalty and that is erasure from the register, and so be it that is the penalty.

Back