20th January 2005, 02:57 PM
Well done Alfie, and apologies if I seemed to have a go, but that's the way I read your first post.
It is legally tricky to ban a unit, councils can't maintain an "approved" list and by the same token nor can they maintain a "black list". Theoretically they would have to demonstrate tha a given unit was not competent for the work in every case where they were put forward by a developer.
I would argue (again!
) that it is not the place of a professional body to monitor and check the work of its members, that does not happen in any other profession. They will (should) act upon complaints of gross or repeated misconduct - a subtly different kettle of fish. Checking of work, is a contractual matter and can only be done by someone pary to the contract in some way: it can only be the curator. Of course, gross misdemeanours like maching through deposits should be reported to the IFA if the unit is a member, for the IFA to take appropriate action on the unprofessional behaviour.
The trouble with three strikes and out is that means that three sites have been trashed.
Naturally it also incumbent on unit's staff, if members, to behave in a professional manner too.
It is legally tricky to ban a unit, councils can't maintain an "approved" list and by the same token nor can they maintain a "black list". Theoretically they would have to demonstrate tha a given unit was not competent for the work in every case where they were put forward by a developer.
I would argue (again!

The trouble with three strikes and out is that means that three sites have been trashed.
Naturally it also incumbent on unit's staff, if members, to behave in a professional manner too.