Professional Conduct Committee Decisions

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

MR ALEXANDER THOMPSON (061514E)

held on

30 March 2011

Architects Registration Board
8 Weymouth Street
London W1W 5BU

Present:

Mr Paul Housego (Chair)
Mrs Barbara Saunders (PCC Lay Member)
Mrs Judy Carr (PCC Architect Member)

Ms Nicola Hill (Clerk to the PCC)

Mr Jonathan Goodwin of Jonathan Goodwin Solicitor Advocate appeared on behalf of the Board

Mr Alexander Thompson did not attend and was not represented.          

The Charge against the Respondent is that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in that he failed and/or delayed in the payment of a professional fee due to a third party, and in so doing failed to act with integrity and to avoid any actions or situations which were inconsistent with his professional obligations, contrary to Standard 1 of the Architects Code of Conduct

DECISION

Chair: The complaint against Mr Thompson arises from a payment made by Mr Thompson’s client of an invoice rendered on 18 September 2009 by Mr Wadsworth, a Structural Engineer.

This payment was made by cheque payable to Mr Thompson, not at Mr Wadsworth’s request, and it seems likely to have been paid to Mr Thompson soon after 10 September 2009 as in an email of that date Mr Thompson refers to it ‘having been sent’ by the client.

The cheque was payable to Mr Thompson. It was to settle Mr Wadsworth’s fee.

However, Mr Thompson paid it into his own business account. He did not tell Mr Wadsworth that he had received the money.

Mr Wadsworth asked about the fee in early November 2009, and was told by Mr Thompson that he had received the money and paid it in to his own business account and then asked for time to pay Mr Wadsworth because of his own cash-flow problems. Mr Wadsworth was sympathetic and agreed.

Document 33 is an email of 26 November 2009 where Mr Wadsworth again asked Mr Thompson for the money. It appears there was then a telephone conversation between Mr Thompson and Mr Wadsworth where Mr Thompson said that he should be keeping the money, apparently on the basis that Mr Thompson sent Mr Wadsworth quite a lot of work. We have heard from Mr Wadsworth and we accept his evidence that Mr Thompson was forceful in that demand. Mr Wadsworth did not however agree, and Mr Thompson said he would pay him in two weeks’ time. He did not.

In the second week in December 2009, Mr Wadsworth asked Mr Thompson again. Again, Mr Thompson tried to insist, somewhat forcefully, that he should keep the money, but again Mr Wadsworth would not agree. Mr Thompson said he would pay some before Christmas and the rest shortly after. Again, he did not.

On 30 December 2009 Mr Wadsworth complained both to the ARB and the RIBA. On 15 February 2010 Mr Wadsworth wrote to the client to say that although the client had paid Mr Thompson, Mr Thompson had not passed the money on so that he, the client, would have to pay Mr Wadsworth directly for a second time effectively.

On 1 March 2010 Mr Thompson paid the money to Mr Wadsworth. On 17 March 2010, Mr Thompson emailed Mr Wadsworth (which is document 18), to say ‘what a mess we’ve created’ and that it was ‘all very silly’. There is no justification for use of the word ‘we’. There was no acknowledgement that Mr Thompson had done anything wrong when he had plainly received money that did not belong to him and wrongly retained it. He did not even tell Mr Wadsworth that it had been received. He exposed his client to the risk of having to pay twice.

We heard evidence from Mr Wadsworth who plainly felt bullied by Mr Thompson into renouncing the claim for money which Mr Thompson had wrongly paid into his own business account. Mr Wadsworth felt that this displayed an arrogance, and we cannot disagree with Mr Wadsworth’s assessment.

The complaint continued and Mr Thompson then attacked Mr Wadsworth calling him ‘untrustworthy’ to the ARB on 31 August 2010 (which is document 38). It advances no cause at all for that, no allegation was made by Mr Thompson and we certainly found none. Mr Wadsworth appeared to us entirely trustworthy.

In his submissions to this Committee dated 21 March 2011, Mr Thompson accuses Mr Wadsworth of not completing the work for which he has been paid. This is wholly incorrect as the work was done by 18 September 2009 and the query was dated 10 November 2009 (document 40 & 41). Mr Wadsworth told us - and we accept - that normally he would have dealt with such a query but on this occasion he requested to be paid before he did so. That was the email of 1 December 2009 and Mr Wadsworth was of course not paid until over three months later.

We considered what Mr Thompson says. His email of 21 March 2011 accepts that the Report to this Committee is essentially correct. He says that Mr Wadsworth is heavy-handed. We disagree. Mr Thompson is wholly in the wrong and it appears he simply cannot see that we he did was inexcusable and wholly unprofessional.

Mr Thompson says that the Report omits vital evidence and we have considered carefully what he says.

First, that Mr Wadsworth accepted delay in payment. This is irrelevant to the fact that Mr Thompson had the money in September 2009 and did not even tell me Mr Wadsworth until he asked about it in November 2009, and then failed paid to pay the money when he said he would do so on two occasions and asked to keep that money.

Second, he says that Mr Wadsworth was prepared to do some work for Mr Thompson for nothing. This seems to us irrelevant and from Mr Wadsworth’s evidence related to only some small work on Mr Thompson’s house.

Thirdly, Mr Thompson says that Mr Wadsworth agreed that payment would be delayed and that there are mitigating circumstances, but none are set out.

Fourthly, he says there are other facts that may be considered but sets none out.

Fifthly, he says that had payment been delayed by six months or a year, Mr Wadsworth may have cause to complain. The payment was made in September by the client but not paid to Mr Wadsworth until March, and so it was six months - but this also misses the point as he should not have retained the money at all: it was not money due to him.

Sixthly, Mr Thompson says he should have retained the money until the queries of 10 November 2009 were dealt with, but that was nearly two months after the cheque was received by Mr Thompson.

None of these are relevant or exculpatory in any way.

Mr Thompson’s dealings with his client and with Mr Wadsworth in the matter of the payment of £402.50 fee received by Mr Thompson from the client in September 2009 and eventually paid in March 2010, lack integrity. Mr Thompson also says on 15 June 2010 (document 32) that he has apologised to Mr Wadsworth. He has not. His attacks on an entirely justified complainant which Mr Thompson accused without any basis whatever of being untrustworthy, also lack integrity.

The Committee finds Mr Thompson guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. We note that dishonesty is not alleged for sound legal reasons, but the lack of integrity shown here is so bad that we have considered erasure. The Committee is particularly concerned by the fact that Mr Thompson does not appear to accept that he has done anything wrong. We have ultimately decided upon a fine of the maximum we can award of £2500. We have no information as to Mr Thompson’s means which would cause us to change the usual order of payment within 28 days.

Back