Professional Conduct Committee Decisions

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER OF

COLIN WARDLE (051340G)

held on

Monday, 12th July 2010

at
Cliffords Inn Conference Centre
 Fetter Lane
 London  EC4A 1LD

Present:

MS ANGELA DEACON
(CHAIR)
MS CHRISTIAN MOGRIDGE
(PCC MEMBER)
MR DONAL HUTCHINSON
(PCC MEMBER)

MR JOHN WILLIAMS appeared on behalf of THE BOARD
MR COLIN WARDLE appeared IN PERSON
STEPHEN BATTERSBY appeared as CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE

DECISION

THE CHAIR:  The Board was represented by Mr John Williams.  Colin Wardle attended and was not represented. 

Mr Wardle faced the following allegations: namely, one, that he undertook professional work for Dr Karen Finch and Andrew Hughes between in/or about November 2006 and the 26th of September 2008 and failed to record in writing as to the scope of the work, the fee or method of calculating it, the allocation of responsibilities, any limitation of responsibilities, the provisions for termination, any special provisions for dispute resolutions, and failed to inform Dr Finch and Andrew Hughes that architects are subject to the disciplinary sanction of the Board in relation to complaints of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence in accordance with standard 11.1 of the Architects Code. 

Secondly, that he failed to carry out professional work without undue delay and so far was reasonably practical, in accordance with any timescale and cost limit agreed with the client in accordance with standard 11.4 of the code. There was a delay of over two years from June 2005 to October 2007 between Mr Wardle being instructed and the start of the building work. 

However, the specific allegation of fact in support of this ground of delay relates to the delay of Mr Wardle in providing the structural calculations/alternative solutions for the garden room which was for a period of approximately six months which is unreasonable bearing in mind the agreed timescale for the building work generally was 20 weeks from October 2007. 

Thirdly, that he failed to provide a substantive reply or to procure a substantive reply to correspondence by way of complaint from Dr Finch and Mr Hughes in a letter dated 28th of May 2008, an email sent on the 16th of July 2008 and a letter dated the 20th of October 2008 promptly, appropriately and within the time limits set out in standard 12.4 of the Code, and fourthly that he failed to respond to correspondence sent by the Board to him on the 11th of February 2009, the 3rd of March 2009, 8th of July 2009, 27th of July 2009 and 2nd of October 2009 within the time limits set out in standard 12.4 of the code.  

Mr Wardle accepts allegation number four referred to above. 

We did not find Mr Wardle a credible witness for the following reasons.
We did not believe that the letter of the 15th of December 2005 was made at the relevant time and sent to Dr Finch.  The reasons are, one; we believe that Dr Finch’s evidence that she meticulously retained all documents relating to this project and the letter of the 15th of December 2005 was not among them. 

Secondly, the letter of the 15th of December 2005 was not produced to Dr Finch when she first commented on its absence in a letter of May 2008.  And furthermore, did not produce it to the Board until the date of the hearing on the 11th of May 2010, at which hearing Mr Wardle knew that Dr Finch would not be present.

Thirdly, the letter of the 15th of December 2005 does not bear the job number, unlike other communications, including the drawings produced the same day as the purported letter and was only addressed to Dr Finch and not to her partner unlike the letter of the 30th of December 2005. 

Fourthly, a letter of the 30th of December 2005 and the three drawings made it clear that Dr Finch had not decided as at the 30th of December 2005 which option she or her partner were going to choose and yet, the letter of the 15th of December 2005 is written as if the decision had been made. 

In light of the above finding, we therefore conclude, in respect of allegation one, that no terms of the contract had been in recorded in writing contrary to standard 11.1 of the code.  With regard to allegation two, we prefer the evidence of Dr Finch who was frank and spontaneous when giving her evidence and conclude that the delay in providing the structural calculations for the garden room for some six months was the responsibility of Mr Wardle contrary to standard 11.4 of the code.  We did not accept that his explanation justified a six months delay. 

Thirdly, with regard to allegation three, on his admission during oral evidence, he did not make any response in writing or indeed orally at subsequent meetings to Dr Finch’s or her partner’s letters of complaint of May, July and October 2008. 

Fourthly, with regard to allegation four, this is admitted indeed by Mr Wardle. 

We have concluded that the allegations found proved amount to unacceptable professional conduct. 

After hearing mitigation, the Committee imposed a penalty order of £2500.

Back