27th October 2011, 04:49 PM
You can win. 
I don't think there is any merit in kicking the IfA - after all they do what they do.
The question is.
Do curators see the RO as a kite mark rather than/instead of a company carrying out decent work in their patch.
Do curators rely on the IfA to enforce standards or do they not have the final say on compliance.
IfA discipline is for people to seek restitution against a company/individual that has broken the code of conduct. Of course a client could refuse to pay or sue a non RO i they mess up (or are percieved to mess up) and of course the curator have either passed or not passed the work in the first place?
So.. to cut a long story short. being RO does add a layer of accreditation ( steady people- lets just accept that) but is not the only measure of capability.
Recognition of the IfA - fine with that.
Can I ask if councils only allow planning applications from architects who are Chartered?
I like the unitesque humour too. but then again... I like a flowing discussion as well.
I don't think there is any merit in kicking the IfA - after all they do what they do.
The question is.
Do curators see the RO as a kite mark rather than/instead of a company carrying out decent work in their patch.
Do curators rely on the IfA to enforce standards or do they not have the final say on compliance.
IfA discipline is for people to seek restitution against a company/individual that has broken the code of conduct. Of course a client could refuse to pay or sue a non RO i they mess up (or are percieved to mess up) and of course the curator have either passed or not passed the work in the first place?
So.. to cut a long story short. being RO does add a layer of accreditation ( steady people- lets just accept that) but is not the only measure of capability.
Recognition of the IfA - fine with that.
Can I ask if councils only allow planning applications from architects who are Chartered?
I like the unitesque humour too. but then again... I like a flowing discussion as well.