ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMllTEE

HELD AT

MALMAISON HOTEL
278 WEST GEORGE STREET
GLASGOW
G2 4LL

THURSDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2006

- - - - - - -

Present:

Mr Peter Verdin (Chairman)
Mr James Cuthbertson
MS Christine Mogridge

IN THE MAlTER OF

WlLLlAM DUNCAN PATERSON
(Registration No. 038255H)

MR JONATHAN GOODWIN appeared as the Board's Solicitor

MR PATERSON did not attend and was not represented

DECISION

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Paterson has admitted the charges against him - it is a charge of unacceptable professional conduct and there are four headings to that charge which have been listed by the Board's Solicitor and I should say that we find that those charges have been proved.

I don't propose to deal with the facts in detail, but Mr Paterson was a partner in a firm Stuart Duncan Partnership which gives as its title on its letterhead Chartered Architects and Surveyors. Mrs Buchanan tells us that she contacted this firm and was visited by a Mr Jamieson, who is in fact not a registered architect, but he does have professional qualifications - he is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. He gave Mrs Buchanan assurances that she was in good hands and Mrs Buchanan understood what she would be receiving from this firm was architectural services, and that in due course quotations would be obtained from builders and the work would be put out to tender. In fact, the works were done by a firm associated with Stuart Duncan Partnership, namely Stuart Duncan Projects. We don't know the constitution of that firm but we know it is associated with the architectural practice and it may be significant that Stuart and Duncan are Christian names of the two partners, Mr Jamieson & Mr Paterson in the architectural firm.

At no time did the clients see Mr Paterson, the registered architect in the practice. It is clear from what has been said that the work was done badly, it wasn't completed and this has resulted in not just distress to Mrs Buchanan but also additional expense and all the trouble that is connected with bad building work.

We find that the charges have been proved, namely that:

Mr Paterson failed to provide any or sufficient written information to his client concerning the scope of his service, his terms or conditions or the basis on which he was to remunerated - which is contrary to Standard 11 .l of the Architects Code of Conduct

That he acted in conflict, or potential conflict of interest situation, and I'll deal with that in due course. Where he offered a service which combined consulting services with contracting services he failed to specify in writing that his practice services would not incorporate the independent functions of an architect.

And finally, and this we regard as the most serious, the part of the charge that he failed to exercise adequate or appropriate supervision of persons whether they were employees or partners - partners in this case - acting under his direct control.

This case does illustrate the dangers of architects acting as contractors or developers. It is not something that is forbidden, but the profession must be aware of the dangers where there can be a conflict of interest between the services which are being offered. We want to send out a message to the profession that an architect must make clear to the client the limitations of the architect's independence where these combined services are being offered. The architect must clearly define the scope of the services which are being offered as an architect. It is more important than ever that this standard is observed.

We find that in this case there has been a clear abdication of responsibility by Mr Paterson. He tells us that he is winding down and shortly to retire - that may be a reason for this abdication but it is certainly no excuse. Because we regard this matter with a considerable degree of seriousness we have decided that the only penalty that can be applied in this case is erasure, and that will be done.

Thank you.