Talk to us
Live Chat
Mr Rodney Purse
THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of
RODNEY PURSE (046983A)
_______________
Present:
Sadia Zouq (Chair)
Janice Tam (Architect Member)
Neil Calvert (Lay Member)
_______________
Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Rodney Purse.
A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The order is a £1,500 penalty order.
In respect of the charges against Rodney Purse (046983A) (“the Registered Person”):
The Registered Person:
a. accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against him in the terms set out below; and
b. confirms that he has been offered the opportunity to appear before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee to present his case, but has foregone his right to do so; and
The Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against the Registered Person in the terms set out below.
The Allegation:
The allegation made against the Registered Person is that he is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct. In support of the allegation, the ARB relies upon the following particulars:
1. The Registered Person did not provide any and/or adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code;
2. The Registered Person did not maintain adequate and appropriate Professional Indemnity Insurance cover, contrary to Standard 8.1 of the Architects Code.
Statement of agreed facts:
1. The Registered Person is a registered architect with his own practice, Rodney Purse & Co Ltd.
2. On 21 August 2024, the ARB received a complaint in respect of the Registered Person from former clients of the Registered Person (“the Referrers”).
3. The Referrers advised that in August 2022 they purchased a property. The Registered Person assisted them with an application for planning permission for the erection of a second storey extension and erection of a detached garage and car port. Conditional planning approval was granted on 15 December 2022. In their complaint to the ARB, the Referrers say that when the project was coming to completion in late 2023, neighbours complained to the Local Authority that the external terracing had not been built in accordance with the approved plans.
4. In January 2024, the enforcement team at the Local Authority wrote to the Referrers and requested changes. An application for variation was submitted for some aspects successfully. However, the Referrers say the Registered Person then spent months asking the builder to make changes. They say the builder undertook four sets of revisions and each time the Local Authority advised these changes were not to plan.
5. The Referrers say that they were advised by the Registered Person to submit an application for variations but then were advised by the planning officer that this application would be refused. The Referrers say that in due course they appointed a planning specialist who made a new Section 73 application and plans. They say that this application stated that the aspects of the external steps and terracing could not be built as per the original plans. At the time, they were selling the property and they say this put the sale in jeopardy and cost them approximately £35,000.
6. The Referrers met with the Registered Person and asked for him to claim the £35,000 costs from his Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”). They say that the Registered Person did not have any insurance in place and was unable to say how long he had been working without it in place. The Referrers also say that the Registered Person was closing down his company and retiring.
7. On 4 September 2024, the ARB telephoned the Referrer, who said that the Registered Person had not held PII cover for “a few years”.
8. During its investigation, the ARB requested further information from the Referrers. On 30 September 2024, the Referrers confirmed that the Registered Person had not provided written terms of engagement for the project.
9. On 17 December 2024, the ARB emailed the Registered Person to request evidence of his current PII cover. The Registered Person responded stating:
a. ““I have not carried indemnity insurance in recent years, nor have I purported to do so […] I accept that I do not carry indemnity insurance and the one or two clients I still advise know this and that any advice is based on my architectural knowledge and experience only”.
10. On 6 March 2025, the ARB sought further information from the Registered Person regarding his PII cover. The Registered Person confirmed the following:
a. “Having checked my records PII was in place throughout my practice until the most recent policy in place with The Professional Indemnity Company for which the level of cover was £10,000,000 for any one claim or an aggregate of claims, for the year commencing 04.04.2019. I do not have run off cover in place not least due to the diminishing risk extent and scope of the work done for clients with whom I maintain a very close and integral relationship”.
11. On 11 March 2025, the ARB wrote to the Registered Person to formally notify him of the ARB’s investigation. Within this letter, the Registered Person was asked to provide a copy of the terms of engagement he had relied on for the project. To date, the Registered Person has not provided the ARB with any terms of engagement for this project.
12. In further correspondence on 17 March 2024 the Registered Person stated:
a. “As you may be aware after 45 years in practice and almost 900 projects there are inevitably some client relationships which are almost as old as the practice itself. I have one such client relationship which has endured through the years and who I am sure will from time to time seek my advice. He is fully conversant with my relinquishing the status of registered architect and RIBA membership and that I do not carry insurance. That said I have in 45 years never given cause to put his or any other clients’ interests at risk. As regards the matter of professional indemnity insurance I can only tender my sincere apologies for lack of regulatory compliance and accept whatever redress the Board determines to exact”.
Admissions:
13. The Registered Person admits that he did not provide any and/or adequate terms of engagement and that this was contrary to Standard 8.1 of the Architects Code.
14. The Registered Person admits that he did not maintain adequate and appropriate PII cover and that this was contrary to Standard 8.1 of the Architects Code.
Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct
15. In light of the admissions above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
16. Standard 4 of the Architects Code (2017) (“the Code”) requires an architect to competently manage their business. Standard 4.4 requires architects to enter into a written agreement with the client before any professional work is undertaken. The written agreement must adequately cover:
a. the contracting parties;
b. the scope of the work:
c. the fee or method of calculating it;
d. who will be responsible for what;
e. any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;
f. the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;
g. a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by ARB;
h. the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed;
i. that you have a complaints-handling procedure available on request;
j. that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to this Code.
17. The Registered Person admits that he did not provide any and/or adequate terms of engagement to the Referrers. The Registered Person accepts that he had a professional obligation to provide his client with full and adequate terms of engagement that complied with the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code. The Registered Person accepts that the provision of clear, understandable written terms of engagement to their client before commencing work is essential to maintain transparency, build trust, and uphold professional standards.
18. Standard 8 of the Code requires an architect to have adequate and appropriate indemnity insurance. An architect is expected to maintain a minimum level of cover, including run off cover, in accordance with ARB guidance. The Registered Person admits that he did not hold adequate PII and that he undertook architectural projects without adequate PII. The Registered Person accepts that PII, and holding adequate run off cover, is a fundamental basic requirement for all architects when practicing and that he exposed both himself and his clients to potentially significant financial risks.
19. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of Standards 4.4 and 8.1 of the Code.
Disciplinary Order
20. The Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee, with the consent of the parties and having taken account of its responsibilities to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession, makes the following disciplinary order:
a. a penalty order of £1,500.
21. The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions. He has also admitted that these amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
22. The admitted allegation has the potential to diminish both the Registered Person’s reputation and that of the profession generally and therefore the parties agree that the Registered Person’s conduct is sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order. In light of the admissions, the parties agree that a penalty order of £1,500 is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.
23. The penalty order of £1,500 is payable within 28 days (by 22 August 2025). Should the Registered Person wish to make an application to vary the payment terms then an application must be submitted to ARB for consideration by the Consent Order Panel Chair.