Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

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

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Salisbury faces up to PCC threat

  • Comment

ARB rebel Ian Salisbury is teetering on the brink of having to face a professional conduct committee (PCC) hearing.

The AJ can reveal that the board has put in place measures to bring Salisbury in front of a hearing for refusing to disclose whether he has the minimum professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover.

Salisbury has become subject to a report from an investigations committee, which found that he should face charges of unacceptable professional conduct unless he reveals whether he has the minimum level of PII.

Salisbury has refused to fill in the mandatory form since the beginning of 2003, insisting that it is not within the board's powers to demand the information.

However, there is a precedent for a successful prosecution. In early 2003, Alexander White was suspended from the ARB after being found guilty of the same charge that is hanging over Salisbury. He was suspended from the register for six months. It is not yet clear how a guilty verdict would impact upon Salisbury's position as a board member.

The decision to push the case this far was down to an investigations committee made up of three of Salisbury's board colleagues:

Nirmala Rao, Jane Rees and Soo Ware.

In a private finding note from the investigations committee, the three demand that the board rebel must 'produce evidence within 10 working days' that he has purchased the requisite cover or he will have to face a PCC hearing.

It is understood, however, that if his case gets as far as a hearing, Salisbury's defence will argue that the board has no right to make a requirement of PII cover under section 13(4) of the Architects Act. The act states that: 'Failure by a registered person to comply with the provisions of the code shall not be taken of itself to constitute unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional misconduct on his part.' Salisbury will also demand an explanation of why ARB bosses chose to single out his case when there are 'many hundreds' of other architects that have also boycotted the board's PII demands.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.