Registrar acted entirely properly

Oldham is, of course, free to express his views although as far as I know he has not yet identified any other cases to support what he says.

The attack on the registrar is unjustified. Referrals to the investigations committee without an external complaint are not “very rare” and form part of the registrar’s statutory duty. It is common for information to reach regulators other than by a formal complaint.

The investigations committee consisted of three individuals who had not been on the board with Oldham and brought their own independent view of whether there was a “case to answer”. It
included an experienced lawyer.

It is not surprising, given the subsequent finding of the independent professional conduct committee (PCC) that Oldham was guilty, that they considered that there was at least a case to answer and referred the case to the PCC. The PCC, which found Oldham guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, was chaired by a deputy high court judge.

There was no “dogged questioning” of the registrar and no reason why she would wish to conceal the performance of her normal responsibilities. Since the registrar’s decision was clearly as required under the act, the effective decision to refer to the PCC was made independently of her by the investigations committee and there is no evidence of any improper motive, the suggestion you repeat of vindictiveness is unfortunate.

Finally I should just record that the characterisation of Arb as a body “lording” over the profession like a “star chamber” while pursuing self-interest in a climate of “silence born out of fear” is colourful but unrelated to the reality of its work as a regulator for the benefit of architects and the public alike.

Beatrice Fraenkel
Chair, Arb

Arb might take a look at the RIBA system, which requires an effort to resolve the problem before acting on a complaint.

If a case does proceed, both complainant and respondent have recourse to the Independent Dispute Resolution Service. This is a great deal less expensive and traumatic than letting a flawed case proceed to conclusion and a possible judicial review.

The RIBA awaits the decision of a higher court before proceeding with a complaint. Arb does not. No doubt all these anachronistic issues will be considered in the government review.

Colin James
via bdonline