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

Bogus architect slapped with £1,000 fine

  • 1 Comment

A fraudulent attempt by a Cheshire-based man to register as an architect has been thwarted by the Architects Registration Board (ARB)

James Peter Hindley was found guilty by Westminster Magistrates’ Court of intentionally attempting to register as an architect with the ARB and of creating and falsifying official documents.

Hindley of the CAVE Architecture & Design based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire, submitted an application to register in January 2014. During the process Hindley produced ‘evidence’ of a Bachelor of Architecture (‘BArch’) he had received from Manchester Metropolitan University.

According to the board it ‘became apparent to ARB the documents he had submitted were false and that it was a deliberate attempt to become registered as an architect in the UK by fraudulent means’.

False registration is a criminal offence under section 7 of the Architects Act 1997, and one which ARB duly prosecuted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 16 July 2014.

Hindley, who failed to attend the hearing, has been fined £1,000 – the maximum amount which could be imposed for the offence – and ordered to pay £2,079 in court costs. A victim surcharge of £100 was also imposed.

Karen Holmes, ARB’s Interim Registrar, said: ‘We have in place a robust process by which all applications for registration are carefully scrutinised to ensure that only those who are appropriately qualified are entered on to the register.’

 

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • I disagree that £1,000 is the maximum fine - isn't this is Fraud by False Representation?

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/fraud_by_false_representation/

    Whilst they may not have yet profited from the fraud, their is clear intent to break the law too and is not even slightly defensible as a mistake (as one might argue when they call themselves an Architect but are not).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this 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.