Report comment

Sanctuary were a Client of mine in the 1990's when I was Managing Partner of a Bradford based practice.

There was none of this sheer nonsense then. It was a relationship not managed by a QS practice, but a direct appointment to the Client for several projects. Fees were reasonable, and paid on time. There were no disputes, no contractual claims, and no problems with the projects whatsoever.

If F&G like many such organisations are increasingly taking over framework procurement agreements then our profession is at fault for lack of commercialism and Client management.

The fees shown are ludicrous. The payment of part of these to F&G is an absolute insult and the whole thing is a shambles.

I wouldn't get involved in any of this type of agreement or service basis and if any of the profession do, then it's tantamount to giving in and accepting that working for free is the way forward.

In reality its a totally retrograde step and will have only detrimental effects upon the profession's financial stability, public perception, and our own sense of worth.

After all time and effort it takes to train to join the profession, the huge liabilities that we carry in terms of PI, our duties of care to Clients and the long hours we have to put in to service project requirements, what really is the point of being an Architect any longer if this type of appointment becomes more widespread?

Before ARB jump on me for hinting that I may be an Architect, I'm not any longer - I gave up the title 5+ years ago.

This was a very difficult decision personally as I was a 3rd generation Architect with much pride in that.

I now practice as a Property, Planning & Architectural Consultant, maintain full PI, have a burgeoning workload through repeat business and recommendations, avoid framework agreements, avoid large QS practices,

I provide Clients with a commercially aware proper professional service as Lead Consultant - as things used to be!

As I'm no longer a member I can't join any RIBA campaign against Scape type agreements (or agreements where the Architect takes the role of Scapegoat), but I totally support any such action.