An architect has been struck off for getting into debt. But is this really ‘professional misconduct’ to anyone other than the Lord Snootys of the profession?
There has never been one ounce of criticism, no complaint, about John Dowland’s competence as an architect. He has been chucked off the pitch by the Register of Architects, and can no longer practice, because their Professional Conduct Committee is hanging on to the sniffy idea that architects are upper class. He qualified 40 years ago. In recent years he got himself into a spot of bother over money. He borrowed to get himself out of the hole, couldn’t pay it back. There was a complaint about all that to the Professional Conduct Committee for architects. It’s not as though he got his architectural soffits mixed up with his elbows and arrises.
It’s not that his architectural talents have gone down hill, it’s not that he can’t do the architect’s job properly. Dear me, no. He has been struck-off for getting into debt. That’s a mortal sin when you are in a posh mob. He is guilty of “unacceptable professional conduct”.
So he has been erased from the register. He can’t earn his living as an architect, not even an employee architect working for a practice.
It’s the word “professional” that does it. And I admit I have a problem with that pedestal, especially in our building industry. I am blowed if any architect is somehow “better” than the bricklayer or plasterer, or come to think of it, site manager, or managing director. If any chippy can’t pay his debts, he is a pain in the whatnot, but no one can stop him from being a bloody good carpenter and earning his living.
If a chippy can’t pay his debts he is a pain in the whatnot, but no one can stop him from being a bloody good carpenter and earning a living
I don’t know this John Dowland architect – sorry, ex-architect. I only know he is bust. After two years of being struck off, he asked to come back. The Register of the Board wrote: “The board will consider the steps you have taken to ensure that in future there would be no possibility of issues arising which may be deemed to be unacceptable professional conduct.” The board did consider, and told him to clear off.
By now the architect is utterly fed up. So he began an action in the High Court. At the heart of his appeal is his view that it is not open to the Register of Architects to refuse re-admittance other than on the basis of evidence of incompetence. What is he up against? It is the Architects Act 1997. It says there is an obligation to maintain a Register of Architects. All you have to show is that you have the necessary qualifications and experience or the equivalent standard of competence. We could do the same, if you like, by the imaginary Plasterers Act 2013 and have the same test for going on a register.
The architects are subject to attack for misconduct and/or incompetence. They can be guilty of “conduct, which falls far short of the standard required of a registered person or serious professional incompetence”.
And if found guilty, a disciplinary order can be made: reprimand, penalty order, supervision order, or erasure order. The erasure order allows application for re-admittance after two years. The Architect’s Act has an angle for re-admittance, which seems to suggest re-admittance is allowed provided he proves he is competent. Does being broke condemn his competence? Well, said the High Court judge, despite there being no issue raised as to Mr Dowlands’ competence, that does not mean the court will reject the committee’s decision not to re-admit him. Seemingly the judge accepted the board “had a broad discretion as to how it should approach the application and was not confined to considerations of competence”.
The board in its deliberations took the view that Mr Dowland “had not changed his attitude to his professional responsibilities: there was a continuing concern about unacceptable professional conduct”. Presumably the method of appeal from the board does not see the judge consider the facts and matters himself to see whether that conclusion is made out.
So that’s that. The chap still can’t practise as an architect. He can when, somehow, he shows he has mended his ways and gets out of, or will never again get into debt. It might help if he got a job as a plasterer or builder or highly competent manager of a multi-million pound construction job until we call those jobs “professional” and of course never fail to pay our bills on time. By the way, I haven’t seen many architects in pin-stripe trousers these days, or many lording it over blokes in cloth caps and muffler. Those days are gone.
Tony Bingham is a barrister and arbitrator at 3 Paper Buildings, Temple
1 Readers' comment