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 use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Architect slapped with £1,000 ARB fine

  • Comment

A Kent-based architect has been fined £1,000 by the Architects Registration Board (ARB) after costs to a home-improvement scheme ballooned by more than 50 per cent

At hearings of the ARB’s professional conduct committee this month, architect Philip John Paul Dadds of Ramsgate, Kent, was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and serious professional incompetence.

The clients had appointed Philip Dadds and Associates (PDA) in 2007 to assist with improvements to their home. 

A contractor was engaged, and the clients entered into a contract with the construction company, valued at nearly £149,000 plus VAT. 

In August 2008, the clients were informed the actual cost was likely to exceed £228,000. The clients requested that Dadds should settle the dispute. 

But the investigation found that the project was managed by unregistered employees of PDA, one of whom left the practice during the course of the works. 

Despite this, and without further recourse to the clients, PDA issued an interim invoice for the full amount.

The ARB committee concluded that Dadds failed to ensure full supervision of the scheme and that the work was not carried out with due skill, care and diligence, which amounted to serious professional incompetence (see full transcript attached right).

In determining the charges, the  committee said the serious professional incompetence related ‘in short, to failure to supervise, and there is considerable mitigation for it is not disputed that this was a well-regarded practice that ran in the same way without any problems for in excess of 20 years.’

Dadds blamed his failure to correspond with the board on dealing with his company’s liquidation. But the committee said his failure to respond amounted to unacceptable professional conduct.

  • 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.