Gov’t eyes hike in fines for bogus architects

Ministers are to look at the case for raising the maximum fine for people convicted of falsely claiming to be architects, it has emerged.

The government’s response to the latest periodic review of professional regulator the Architects Registration Board has called for a re-examination of the current maximum £2,500 penalty for misrepresentation.

Government figures show that the Arb has launched 1,654 misuse of title investigations over the past six years, 25 of which have resulted in a criminal conviction with the remaining cases resolved outside of court.

In its review response, the Department for Communities and Local Government said the case for raising the £2,500 bar should be investigated with the Ministry of Justice “at the earliest opportunity” following concern that it “may be too low to act as an effective deterrent”.

Elsewhere, the review response accepted the case for maintaining the Arb’s model of light-touch regulation for the profession, but proposed slashing the size of its board by at least four members from its current 15 – and potentially to as few as nine.

The review also urged the Arb to consider hiring an in-house lawyer to provide day-to-day advice in a bid to curb its legal expenditure, which currently runs at more than one-quarter of its total annual budget. Figures for 2015 showed the ARB spent £953,549 on legal and other professional services, out of a total operating budget of £3.37m.

Other measures include amending the Architects Act 1997, so that minor complaints against professionals can be dealt with without recourse to the Arb’s Professional Conduct Committee.

In a move that prompted anger from the RIBA, the government placed on hold proposals to reduce the minimum education requirements for registration as an architect from the current five years of academic study, plus two years of practical experience and a final examination.

The review said a model combining four years of study with two years of mandatory professional traineeship “would reduce costs for students and schools of architecture” as well as making the UK a potentially more attractive place to study.

But housing and planning minister Gavin Barwell – whose brief includes architecture – said uncertainty over the future of the UK’s relationship with European Union rules on harmonising professional qualifications meant the professional accreditation issues should be parked.

“These recommendations could lead to extensive change for UK architects, and architectural education but also relate directly to UK compliance with the EU Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive,” he said.

“The government has decided that it would be premature to take forward these recommendations at this time but as the UK leaves the EU, we recognise these will need to be addressed.

“This will minimise disruption and cost to business, architects and the educational sector.”

RIBA president Jane Duncan said she was “bitterly disappointed” with the decision, which she said frustrate “the clear and urgent need for wider access and greater diversity” in the profession.

“We are actively seeking to encourage skilled students from all backgrounds to enter the profession,” she  said.

“The result means the profession of architecture will be increasingly reserved for the wealthy middle classes who can afford to study for seven-plus years.”

Arb chair Nabila Zulfiqar adopted a more conciliatory tone on the qualifications issue but said the board was pleased DCLG had included the regulator’s proposals for modernising its statutory processes in its conclusions.

“The board will consider and discuss the government’s findings at the earliest opportunity,” she said.