3rd January 2007, 02:11 PM
Dr Peter wrote:
'RAOs have to carry PI insurance and thus the IFA is in a position to give a basic garantuee of quality.
I really cannot see anybody trying to sue the IFA when an organisation has PI insurance. I am sure that no other trade organisation worry about this.'
By co-incidence, I was just reading about a couple who engaged the services of an architect to design their dream house in Scotland. They made all the right checks, found out that the architect was registered with the Arb (Architects Registration Board - motto = 'protecting the consumer and safeguarding the reputation of architects') and was also a member of RIAS (Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland).
Sadly the architect failed to deliver to the required quality and walked away suffering from some form of nervous breakdown leaving the couple £250K out of pocket. It turned out that he had previously been struck off by Arb for 10 years in 1990 after being convicted of defrauding an elderly neighbour out of £60K and was jailed for a year, only to be allowed back onto the Arb in 1993 ! The architect's insurers refused to pay out saying that the cover was not valid due to a 'serious non-disclosure' of the facts, i.e. not mentioning his previous conviction.
The couple complained to the Arb, who struck the guy off the register again but said that there was nothing more that they could do. Arb are now calling for a public debate on whether or not to amend the Architects Act to allow the right of redress, including the setting up of a central compensation fund, and establishing an independent ombudsman with the power to order architects to pay compensation
This could so easily happen in archaeology, where PI cover is assumed or certificates produced on request, but where cover may deemed to be invalid in some circumstances. What is interesting is that the couple clearly had no legal case for redress against the Arb or the RIAS.
The Arb call for a public debate has been backed by the National Consumer Council who said the the absence of any redress was concerning and that architects risked falling behind other professions such as medicine and legal services which were both belatedly pushing forward with consumer redress schemes.
Beamo
'RAOs have to carry PI insurance and thus the IFA is in a position to give a basic garantuee of quality.
I really cannot see anybody trying to sue the IFA when an organisation has PI insurance. I am sure that no other trade organisation worry about this.'
By co-incidence, I was just reading about a couple who engaged the services of an architect to design their dream house in Scotland. They made all the right checks, found out that the architect was registered with the Arb (Architects Registration Board - motto = 'protecting the consumer and safeguarding the reputation of architects') and was also a member of RIAS (Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland).
Sadly the architect failed to deliver to the required quality and walked away suffering from some form of nervous breakdown leaving the couple £250K out of pocket. It turned out that he had previously been struck off by Arb for 10 years in 1990 after being convicted of defrauding an elderly neighbour out of £60K and was jailed for a year, only to be allowed back onto the Arb in 1993 ! The architect's insurers refused to pay out saying that the cover was not valid due to a 'serious non-disclosure' of the facts, i.e. not mentioning his previous conviction.
The couple complained to the Arb, who struck the guy off the register again but said that there was nothing more that they could do. Arb are now calling for a public debate on whether or not to amend the Architects Act to allow the right of redress, including the setting up of a central compensation fund, and establishing an independent ombudsman with the power to order architects to pay compensation
This could so easily happen in archaeology, where PI cover is assumed or certificates produced on request, but where cover may deemed to be invalid in some circumstances. What is interesting is that the couple clearly had no legal case for redress against the Arb or the RIAS.
The Arb call for a public debate has been backed by the National Consumer Council who said the the absence of any redress was concerning and that architects risked falling behind other professions such as medicine and legal services which were both belatedly pushing forward with consumer redress schemes.
Beamo