By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


ARB anger as Lloyd's stance on PII questioned


In relation to your article last week that the ARB has elected a long-term advocate of high compulsory levels of Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) for architects as its chairman (AJ 24.2.05), I can recognise no truth in this statement. The chairman was one of the few board members who thought that for those in part-time practice lower levels of PII cover might be possible, subject to appropriate assurances being met. I also think your readers might be interested to know that a recent survey by the RIBA showed that 79 per cent of practices with up to five staff purchase an indemnity level well above the ARB minimum.

Furthermore, there is reference to the 'wide-ranging activities of the board in education'. This is a canard that is repeated parrotlike by those who wish to attack the ARB. The truth of the matter is that ARB has to prescribe qualifications. In doing this it has found a methodology as far from education as is possible. Humphrey Lloyd, with his colleagues, oversaw the board removing itself from visiting schools of architecture. What you have reported is the reverse of what is true.

Robin Vaughan, chief executive and registrar, ARB

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters