Our work to protect the title ‘architect’ continues. In this article, you can read a summary of two recent misuse of title prosecutions. In one of these cases, magistrates ordered the perpetrator to pay over £8,000 in fines and costs, the second highest penalty we have seen awarded for such an offence.

Misuse of title in practice’s website and social media results in fine and costs exceeding £8,000

On 7 July 2016, Mr Stephen Vaughan of Plan It Design, London was ordered to pay a total of £8,128 in fines and costs after he was convicted for misusing the title ‘architect’ in the content and meta-data of his practice website and on social media. Mr Vaughan attended court and pleaded guilty to all three offences being in breach of the Architects Act 1997; he was fined £500 in relation to each offence, totaling £1,500 and was ordered to pay a court charge of £50 and costs to ARB of £6,578.

Former Architect found guilty of misuse of title

On 25 May 2016, Mr Andrew Plumridge of Peter Scott & Partners, Newbury, Berkshire, was convicted on five counts of the criminal offence of misusing the title ‘architect’. A District Judge sitting at Reading Magistrates’ Court heard that despite having been erased from the Register of Architects in 2013 for unacceptable professional conduct, Mr Plumridge had continued to practice under the name, style or title of ‘architect’, contrary to section 20 of the Architects Act 1997.

Mr Plumridge was charged in relation to using the title in planning applications; when taking out an advert with Yell.com; by using the acronym RIBA after his name, and through the use of his website and email address. Despite denying all of the charges, the judge found that Mr Plumridge had quite clearly been carrying on a business, and so the use of the word architect in his website and email address was illegal, as was his use of the acronym RIBA. His advertising in Yell as an architect was a deliberate act and not a mistake on the part of the directory, and his explanation in relation to the website hosting company lacked any credibility. Overall, it was a deliberate attempt by Mr Plumridge to circumvent legislation with which he did not agree. After taking into account Mr Plumridge’s restricted means, the Court imposed a fine of £1,500 with a further £2,530 in costs and surcharges.

If you are interested to read more about ARB’s misuse of title prosecutions please click here.