ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

The Cliffords Inn Conference Centre
Cliffords Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1LD

IN THE MATTER OF INGRID MORRIS (042779)

on

6 JUNE 2007

Present:

Chairman: Peter Verdin
PCC Member: Donal Hutchinson
PCC Member: Linda Read

_________________

HEARING
_________________

Ms NICOLA HILL appeared as Clerk to the Committee

MR IAIN MILLER of Messrs Bevan Brittan appeared on behalf of the Board.
MS MORRIS was not represented.

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

 The architect was charged with unacceptable professional conduct in that:-

1a) she carried out work on behalf of a client in 2003 and/or 2004 without having professional indemnity insurance in breach of Standard 8 of the Code of Conduct;

1b) she failed to ensure that she had in place adequate run-off cover when she allowed her professional indemnity cover to lapse in or about 2002;

2) That on 13 February 2006 she was convicted of a breach of sections 7 and 9 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 at Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court which has material relevance to her fitness to practice as an architect.

DECISION

THE CHAIRMAN:  We have already found that both the charges were proved and we are now dealing only with the matter of penalty, and Ms Morris has spoken to us on matters which she wanted us to take into account in mitigation.  I will deal with charge 2 first. 
There were three separate versions of the events which have taken place given to us by Ms Morris.  In order of time these were: the defence to the civil action, which appears at pages 22 to 39 of Mr Miller’s bundle, and which is very detailed, and which I will call the pleadings; then there is the version in Ms Morris’s letter to Mr Peacock at the ARP dated 16 July 2006, which appears at page 47 onwards of Mr Miller’s bundle; and then there is the version in the papers which have been submitted to us by Ms Morris for this hearing and which she has referred to today, and which I will call her defence.  This latter document does not contain the same detail as the two earlier versions. 
The impression which we received from Ms Morris today and from her defence is that she did not know the status of Mr Ravie, whom she met on 18 June when she says, “The only time the question of the permission was raised with us was at a site inspection on 18 June.”  This is not strictly correct if one accepts her version in the pleadings to the civil action, and in her letter to Mr Peacock.  Mr Ravie has spoken to Professor Hope’s wife on 16 June and told her that they did not have permission.  This was relayed by Professor Hope’s wife to Ms Morris and Ms Morris attended the meeting on 18 June after having offered to speak to Mr Ravie and he agreed to meet her on 18 June.
It was then that she was shown drawings by Mr Ravie and he pointed out discrepancies.  After this meeting, Ms Morris spoke to her client, who told her to speak to Miss Round at the city council.  Miss Round said, “What’s on the drawings stands” but she also advised that the council had lost the planning files.  Ms Morris reported this to her clients, who told her, “entre nous” that there were other drawings.  Ms Morris referred to these today as sketches, but the defence in the letter to Mr Peacock referred to them as drawings.
I set these facts out because we are satisfied that alarm bells should have been ringing and Ms Morris should have been aware of the danger, not only to her client but to herself and possibly to the building of the possibility of a criminal act if the work proceeded.  She has told us today of a conversation with her client when she asked him what she should do and she tells us that he said, “Do nothing”.  This contrasts with her letter to Mr Peacock and with the pleadings.  In her letter, she says that her client instructed her to allow the builder to proceed and in her pleadings she says that her client instructed her to proceed with the building works.
The impression we received today was that she had no relationship with the builder.  On page 3 of her defence she says, “I was not involved in instructing the builders”.   We must conclude that Ms Morris was aware of the danger of the proceedings.  She had some relationship with the builders and to put it at its lowest, Ms Morris should have made her client aware of these dangers in strong terms.  She told us today that after her conversation with her client she then drove to see her father.  She was understandably worried about her father but we must conclude that an architect should have written to her client emphasising the dangers which were faced by carrying on with the building work in the light of the doubts which existed.  Ms Morris should have refused to consent to the building work proceeding and the conviction of her client was certainly partly as a result of her failure to properly warn him of the consequences of proceeding without making sure that there was a proper permission in place.
I will now deal with part one, which we have also found proved.  The results of this episode illustrate the seriousness of accepting a commission while knowing that one did not have insurance cover or any run off cover, and Ms Morris has certainly paid heavily for this. We are conscious of the problems that this lack of cover has caused to her client and we note that in April 2004 Ms Morris declared to the ARB that she was only teaching or lecturing on architectural matters at that time.  Ms Morris says in correspondence that in November 2003 she was instructed by Professor Hope to obtain planning consent to remove the staircase and she was clearly involved professionally from that date and throughout 2004 including the date of her declaration to ARB. 
For these reasons we regard these two charges as very serious.  There are inconsistencies which have impressed upon us the seriousness of both of these offences, individually and cumulatively, and we have to reflect this concern. We had considered erasure but we have decided that we will not go along this path but that instead you will be suspended for a period of one year.  That is our decision.  You will be notified by the registrar and the suspension takes effect from the date of your notification.  Thank you.