ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

Cliffords Inn Conference Centre
Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1LD

on

12 JUNE 2007

Present:

Mr Michael Williams (Chairman)
Ms Linda Read
Mr Stephen Brookhouse

- - - - - -

IN THE MATTER OF
NEIL RAMSAY (050321E)

- - - - - -
MR STEPHEN BATTERSBY appeared as CLERK to the COMMITTEE
MR JOHN WILLIAMS of Bankside Law appeared on behalf of the BOARD
MR RAMSAY was not present and not represented

- - - - - - -

(Transcribed by Harry Counsell & Co
Cliffords Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1LD
Telephone 020 7269 0370

- - -  - -

CHARGES
The architect was charged with unacceptable professional conduct in that:-
1a) he failed to maintain Professional Indemnity Insurance cover from 25 April 2006
1b) he failed to provide evidence as requested by the ARB demonstrating compliance with the insurance requirement
1c) he failed to deal promptly and appropriately with correspondence from the ARB

DECISION
CHAIRMAN:  On the basis of that evidence and given that Mr Ramsay has plainly been given adequate evidence of the action that the ARB is taking and would therefore have been in a position to attend today’s hearing if he had wished to do so, we find the case proved and the charge 1.A and 1.C we make a finding in favour of the ARB and so far as 1.B is concerned we are content to leave that matter without any finding having been made one way or another and that if necessary it would be open to the ARB at a later stage to proceed with that, but we make no finding on that today.
              Once again we would like to invite you to withdraw, if you would be kind enough to do so, so that we can determine the penalty that we will want to impose.

[Short adjournment]
CHAIRMAN:  We have already made our findings in respect of the three charges which have been preferred against Mr Ramsay and will now turn to the penalty that we propose to impose. 
              The only evidence that has been led is specifically in respect of the failure to complete a Compliance Certificate for the year 2006 and that is what we are addressing.
              I turn firstly to charge 1.A, which we find proved.  The ARB of course is not in a position to provide positive evidence of non-compliance, only that it has sought evidence from Mr Ramsay on a number of occasions, as provided in the various letters which have been produced, and evidence of insurance for the year 2006 and none has been provided. 
              Consideration of Rule 11A of the Professional Conduct Committee Rules provide that the Committee is not bound by the judicial rules of evidence, that it may receive such oral, documentary or other evidence as appears to be relevant to the case, and on that basis we think that the ARB has properly discharged its duty of proof, so far as it is realistic and possible for it to do so, in showing that Mr Ramsay has no insurance, or at least that is the inescapable conclusion from the opportunities which he has been invited to provide it and his failure to do so.
              So on that basis we are content to accept the evidence of the ARB and make a finding of guilt on allegation 1(a) 
              So far as charge 1(b) is concerned, a request has been made that that should simply remain on the file without proof one way or another and we are content to deal with it on that basis.
              So far as charge 1(c) is concerned, the failure to handle correspondence promptly and appropriately and in accordance with the time limits referred to in Standard 12(4) of the Standards of Conduct and Practice in the Architectural Code, there is positive evidence which has been produced by the ARB and therefore we consider that Mr Ramsay is in breach of his duties under Standard 12(4) as set out in that charge as well.
              We turn now to the nature of the penalty that we as a Committee propose to impose upon Mr Ramsay.  He has given no explanation for his failure to send back the Statement of Compliance, he has had ample opportunity to provide an explanation or mitigation, we note specifically that in the letter which is dated 26 May 2006 but should in fact be dated 19 May 2006, not only was it sent by recorded delivery but a further Compliance Form was enclosed - it would have been a matter of moments for him to tick the box and return it and he failed to do so. In the circumstances we think an appropriate fine would be a sum of £1,000, which is what we seek to impose in this case.  Payable in 28 days.