Arb must tackle discipline flaws

I have been involved in two cases where Arb procedures in investigating and deciding complaints have not been handled correctly, efficiently or – most importantly – fairly during the investigation process and in one case the final PCC hearing.

I get no pleasure from asking you to print my views as a past chairman of Arb and someone who believes the Registration Board has a very worthwhile function. But there are clearly serious flaws in the way Arb is conducting its disciplinary procedures. If not rectified, these will provide persuasive ammunition to those who wish to see Arb abolished – something I believe would be potentially disastrous for the profession and the RIBA.

Owen Luder
Past chairman, Arb

I note that Arb is poised to launch a penalty on Joshua Whitfield Berry after Westminster Magistrates Court fined him for causing unauthorised work to be done to a listed building (News June 21). Again it highlights the vulnerability of architects in daily practice, and more so at the hands of our self-appointed “regulator”.

We all know it is impossible to predict the condition of a building at the design stage, and faults usually reveal themselves during the opening-up process. At that stage the architect has to make quick decisions knowing that if he waits he is at risk of being sued for delays.

I don’t know the precise circumstances but I have no doubt Berry acted with the best interests of the building and project in mind. What is worrying is that he must join the architects who will have their reputations blighted by Arb under its inherently unfair procedures.

As one of those abused by Arb and its PCC, I don’t hold out much hope of Berry receiving a fair hearing.

Andrew Plumridge
Newbury, Berkshire