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.


Award-winning architect fined for professional misconduct

The Architects Registration Board has found Julian Marsh of Nottingham-based Marsh Grochkowski Architects guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and fined him £1,000

The architect faced three charges relating to his project to refurbish a client’s home. The client had terminated work with Marsh when he said tenders were returned at double the agreed price to carry out the work. 

The architect was accused of failing to fully set out the terms of the contract in writing, failing to complete the work within the agreed budget and failing to inform the client about the work’s progress or any other matters relating to quality or costs.

At the hearing, Marsh partially agreed that he had failed to fully inform his client in writing. But, he refused to accept the remaining two allegations, arguing his practice had relied on a contracted surveyor’s opinion on refurbishment costs and was therefore not responsible for them.

He also argued that the increasing costs reflected the client’s changes to the project at a later stage.

The committee agreed with the accusation that Marsh had failed to fully set out the terms in writing.

They also concluded a budget had never been agreed between the two parties, and as such, accepted Marsh’s assertion that it was the client’s changes that produced the increase in costs. As such, Marsh was found not guilty of the latter two charges.

However, as the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) concluded Marsh had failed to provide his client with a contract, he was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.

Marsh’s practice has won several awards for work in the residential, education and leisure sectors.

The PCC hearing took place on 18 and 19 March.

Read the PCC’s decision in full

Readers' comments (1)

  • What a stitch up.

    Getting a small residential client to sign a contract?

    Dream on.

    I bet the fees were peanuts as well.

    Abolish the ARB!

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

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

AJ newsletters