Claim of unnaceptable conduct found proven against architect

Andrew James Plumridge, senior partner at Newbury firm Peter Scott and Partners, had his name erased from the Register of Architects, governed by the Architects Registration Board (ARB), following a hearing on April 30, which considered claims of unprofessional conduct made against him.
An ARB professional conduct committee considered a claim that Mr Plumridge had recommended to a client the use of a ‘preferred builder’, but failed to declare in writing to his client his close friendship with the builder in question.
The panel also reported: “Following Mr Plumridge’s assertion that the contract had ended, the client wished to obtain an independent valuation of the works carried out. He instructed an architect (whose name he obtained from RIBA) to inspect the works and assess their value.”
The panel stated that the independent architect “reported that Mr Plumridge’s valuation certificates were ‘very unusual’ in certifying 100 per cent of the value of the work and materials rather than allowing for any retention”. The independent architect “also disagreed with many items on Mr Plumridge’s valuation schedules”, the panel stated.
After the formal complaint had been made against him, the hearing was told how Mr Plumridge had lodged “unfounded allegations” to his client’s employer, which alleged that he had divulged confidential information and had possibly stolen property.
Investigations by the employer found no evidence to support these allegations, the committee heard.
Mr Plumridge did not attend the hearing and the board heard that he had no previous disciplinary history.
A spokesman for the Newbury firm, who refused to be named, said that Mr Plumridge’s non-attendance at the hearing was owing to the fact that he had undergone surgery for the treatment of cancer. The spokesman added that requests to have the hearing adjourned had been refused by the Architects Registration Board.
He stressed that Peter Scott and Partners would continue trading. The spokesman also stated that it was intended to lodge an appeal against the ARB’s findings.
A statement released by the ARB said: “Mr Plumridge had supplied no documentary evidence in support of his claims of current ill-health, his lack of readiness for [the] hearing, his inability to secure representation at today’s hearing, and the unavailability of himself and his witness to attend.
“It was clear from Mr Plumridge’s correspondence with the board that he refuted the allegations and wished to defend himself, but at no point during the 17 months since he was notified of these proceedings had he put forward any defences for the panel to consider.
“The committee found that Mr Plumridge’s unacceptable professional conduct had resulted in serious expense, inconvenience, and distress to his client.
“It was particularly concerned about the timing and content of the architect’s letter to his client’s employer.”