THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER OF

J FRANCIS HEALEY (031292D)

on

2 May 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 Healey 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 18 April 2007 in accordance with Standard 8 of the Code of Conduct

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

(iii) that he failed to provide a reply to correspondence from the Board within the timescale set out in Standard 12 of the Code

DECISION

CHAIRMAN: The Board was represented in this matter by Mr Williams of Bankside Law.  The defendant did not appear but submitted two letters to the Board in fairly short succession. One was dated 15 February 2008 and the second does not seem to have been dated but it was received by the Board on 6 March 2008. Both were read to  us verbatim by Mr Williams and we have taken some of the factors into account in deciding how to dispose of this case.
                        Mr John Francis Healey faces three allegations which are brought against him by the Board. These are set out in the report of the Board dated 6 December 2007 and are as follows.  The first is that he failed to maintain adequate or appropriate professional indemnity insurance from 18 April 2007 until 24 January 2008 in accordance with Standard 8.1 of the Architects Code, Standards of Conduct and Practice 2002.
                        The slight alteration to include an end period for the failure to have adequate PII insurance was made as a result of an application by the solicitor on behalf of the Board early this afternoon for leave to amend.
                        Charge 2 was that he failed to provide evidence of professional indemnity insurance in the form required by the ARB in order to demonstrate compliance with Standard 8.3 of the Code, and as requested by the Board in letters dated 18 April 2007 and 7 June 2007.
                        The third and final allegation was that Mr Healey failed to provide a substantive reply or to procure a substantive reply to correspondence from the Board dated 18 April 2007, 22 August 2007 and 10 September 2007 promptly and within the timescale subsection 4 of the code.
                        We find for the Board so far as the first of the allegations were concerned.  The second is, of course, an alternative and in those circumstances we dismiss the failure to produce.  Similarly, we find that Mr Healey failed to respond to the Board as he should have done and in those circumstances we find in favour of the Board so far as that charge was concerned.
                        We have noted the responses made by Mr Healey.  We accept that the alternative commitments that he had were reasonable and we consider that the approach that he has adopted, although he was tardy in previous correspondence that he has had with the Board is acceptable conduct and indicative of the fact that he is an architect who recognises his obligations to his profession and to members of the public and that he is not seeking deliberately to ignore his responsibility for insurance and the like.
                        It appears that he was too relaxed in worrying about whether the developers for whom he undertook most of his work were adequately covered or not and that is the reason why we find against him in respect of the first of the charges.  It is clear, however, that once he became aware of the unsatisfactory nature of his insurance cover he sought to address it.  He has now incurred – either he has incurred expenditure or he has arranged for his developers to incur expenditure – I do not know which but I suspect that his fees are not unconnected with what somebody has to pay on his behalf – so we note that he is doing his best now to comply now with his continuing obligations so far as the insurance is concerned and this is an important factor in assisting us in deciding how we dispose of this matter.

e have also noted that he is 78 years of age. He is plainly, therefore, not generating work or, indeed, always able to deal with the vicissitudes of the daily demands of professional life with quite the vigour of someone half his age, and in those circumstances we think that the right way of disposing of this matter is by a reprimand.