黑洞社区

There has never been one ounce of criticism, no complaint, about John Dowland鈥檚 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鈥檛 pay it back. There was a complaint about all that to the Professional Conduct Committee for architects. It鈥檚 not as though he got his architectural soffits mixed up with his elbows and arrises.

It鈥檚 not that his architectural talents have gone down hill, it鈥檚 not that he can鈥檛 do the architect鈥檚 job properly. Dear me, no. He has been struck-off for getting into debt. That鈥檚 a mortal sin when you are in a posh mob. He is guilty of 鈥渦nacceptable professional conduct鈥�.

So he has been erased from the register. He can鈥檛 earn his living as an architect, not even an employee architect working for a practice.

It鈥檚 the word 鈥減rofessional鈥� 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 鈥渂etter鈥� than the bricklayer or plasterer, or come to think of it, site manager, or managing director. If any chippy can鈥檛 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鈥檛 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鈥檛 know this John Dowland architect 鈥� 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: 鈥淭he 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.鈥� 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 鈥渃onduct, which falls far short of the standard required of a registered person or serious professional incompetence鈥�.

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鈥檚 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鈥� competence, that does not mean the court will reject the committee鈥檚 decision not to re-admit him. Seemingly the judge accepted the board 鈥渉ad a broad discretion as to how it should approach the application and was not confined to considerations of competence鈥�.

The board in its deliberations took the view that Mr Dowland 鈥渉ad not changed his attitude to his professional responsibilities: there was a continuing concern about unacceptable professional conduct鈥�. 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鈥檚 that. The chap still can鈥檛 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 鈥減rofessional鈥� and of course never fail to pay our bills on time. By the way, I haven鈥檛 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 黑洞社区s, Temple