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

. . . are mad rather than merely draconian

  • Comment
letters

'Draconian' is too narrow a description of ARB's hardline stance on PII (AJ 30.5.02). How about going mad? I recently asked the registrar for clarification on PII with reference to charities - I act as an architect in my own free time for a charity in an unpaid capacity, delivering professional advice but not services. So do I need the minimum £250k cover? The answer was a stentorian yes!

But wait, I opined.Was it reasonable that I should have to bear the cost of the minimum PII cover for such charitable efforts in the community? The answer was easy; the registrar elegantly suggested (in writing) that if I could not meet the cost, I should get the charity to foot the bill on my behalf! Which kind of defeats the object of undertaking charitable work in the first place. Of course, if it becomes impossible for architects to provide services to consumers, then the risks to consumers from architects will become nugatory and ARB will have done its job. Still, I'm sure there will be a place for PPRIBA somewhere in the 'jobs for the old boys' scheme of things.

Well done chaps!

Simon Danischewsky, Cambridge

  • 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.