THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER OF

ROBERT DAW (054720D)

on

25 January 2008

Cliffords Inn Conference Centre
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1LD

Present:

Chairman:                   Michael Williams
PCC Member             Christine Mogridge
PCC Member             James Cuthbertson

Ms Nicola Hill appeared as Clerk to the Committee
Mr John Williams of Bankside Law appeared on behalf of the Board
Mr Daw did not attend the Hearing and was not represented

_________________

DECISION
_________________

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:

(i) that he failed to maintain adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance from 25 April 2006

(ii) that he failed to provide evidence of his professional indemnity insurance for 2006

(iii) that he failed to provide a reply to correspondence from the Board

(iv) that he failed to maintain adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance from 18 April 2007

(v) that he failed to provide evidence of his professional indemnity insurance for 2007

DECISION

CHAIRMAN: The committee has met this afternoon in order to consider six allegations of unacceptable professional conduct against Mr. Robert Southey Daw.  These have been brought against him in accordance with s.14(1)(a) of the Architects Act 1997 and Mr. John Williams is acting on behalf of the Architects Registration Board in the presentation of this case.
            There are six allegations set out in the report lodged on behalf of the Board’s solicitor dated 16 October 2007.  I do not propose to read out in detail all six of these but I will provide the gist. 
            Paragraph 2(i) alleges that the defendant failed to maintain adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance for the period effectively for the year from 25 April 2006.  (ii) as an alternative provides that the defendant failed to provide adequate evidence of any professional indemnity insurance which he might have to the board in accordance with the obligation which he under Standard 8.3 of the code.
            (iii) alleges as an additional complaint that in any event the defendant failed to provide appropriate responses to the board in accordance with correspondence which is attached to the report and to which our attention has been drawn. 
            (iv) relates to an allegation that the defendant failed to have adequate professional indemnity insurance for the year from 18 April 2007 and (v) is the alternative in the event that there was insurance he failed to provide evidence of that to the ARB as he was obliged to under Standard 8.3.
            Once again, finally there is the failure to respond adequately or at all to the proper requests for information made by the board during a period between April and June 2007 in breach of Standard 12.4 of the code.  We have read and had drawn to our attention the supporting documentation in support of the evidence, and we have also been satisfied as to the question of service of this hearing and we are satisfied that Mr. Daw is aware of these disciplinary proceedings which have been brought against him today.  In particular, we have had produced and shown to us a copy of the letter written by Mr. Simon Howard, on behalf of the Architects Registration Board, dated 21 November 2007 serving the reports of the board’s solicitor upon Mr. Daw and an explanation of the procedure that he should adopt if he wishes to defend or respond any part of those allegations.  We have also received a subsequent proof of delivery document which shows that it was duly served.
            In those circumstances, we do not make a finding so far as the failure to maintain the professional indemnity insurance, but we do find that if the defendant had any insurance, and we have not seen any satisfactory evidence that there is, but if he did he certainly did not comply with his obligation to notify the Architects Registration Board as he should and so we find against him so far as the second of the allegations as numbered, paragraph 2(ii) of the report prepared by the Board’s solicitor. 
            We also find that the defendant failed to respond adequately to the communications which he received from the board and therefore we find against him so far as section 2(iii) is concerned.  Those all relate to the insurance that he had or should have from April 2006. 
            We make similar findings on the similar framework for the year 2007.  In other words, we do not make a finding and dismiss the allegation that is set out in paragraph 2(iv) of the board’s report, but we do make a finding in favour of the board in respect of paragraph 2(v), a failure to produce the insurance and (vi) of the same section, namely the failure to respond adequately to the correspondence sent by the board.  We therefore find that the defendant was in breach of the duty that he had to comply with Standard 12.4 of the code. 
             
(Adjourned)

CHAIRMAN:  I turn now to the question of the penalty which we are considering imposing as a result of the findings that we have made.  It is clear from the evidence that although Mr. Daw had insurance up to and including the year 2005, and we have seen this from the compliance form that he sent to the Architects Registration Board on 8 March 2005, we have seen that there has been a reasonable amount of correspondence generated by the ARB for the year 2006 and 2007 which does not appear to have had any response from Mr. Daw and which properly demanded response which as a registered architect he had a duty to provide.
            In those circumstances, we think that in deciding what disciplinary order we should make under the provisions of s.15(2) of the Architect Act that we would want to have open and available to us all or any of the penalties listed in (a) to (d) inclusive.  Since some of these at least are of a serious nature and would impact on the defendant’s further ability to continue practice as a registered architect, we think it right that he should have a final opportunity to make any representations to us.  As to the nature of the penalty before we make that decision and we are therefore seeking to adjourn this case to allow that to happen.
            We would ask that the ARB made arrangements for a further hearing to take place as soon as convenient.  Given the obligations of the prosecution solicitor and the members of the Committee itself, we anticipate that this is unlikely to be heard once again for at least four weeks and probably more.  In those circumstances, we think that notification to the defendant of the decision, and a further opportunity which will be available to him to make any submissions prior to the imposition of a penalty, he will have adequate time to deal with this without us stipulating a specific time limit before that new hearing is arranged.

DECISION
2 May 2008

THE CHAIRMAN:  We are satisfied that Mr Daw has been properly served with the notice of the new hearing date, the reasons for the adjournment on the last occasion and the seriousness with which the PCC took his failure to produce any evidence about his insurance, and the possible course of action that we might adopt by way of penalty as a result of that conduct.  Despite having been given an opportunity of coming to provide an explanation which might be relevant in mitigation, he has not done so. 
                        There is a consistent course of conduct, therefore, in this matter where the defendant has simply, for no explanation of which we are aware, failed to respond to the ARB in time or, indeed, at all.
                        In those circumstances we do view the matter seriously.  In paragraph 5 of the report which the Board has made in this matter in October 2007 it refers once again to the reasons why it is necessary for the Board to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of professional indemnity insurance.  We do not propose to repeat those but we support the views expressed and accept the necessity for their seeking to protect the public, and of course, ensure that the profession are properly regulated.

n view of this proper conduct of their responsibilities, it is essential that members of the profession realise the seriousness of their duties to answer these requests of the Board and in those circumstances and due to the fact that Mr Daw has signally failed to provide any communication or explanation for his omissions, we do not think that we have any alternative but to make an erasure order.