Hertfordshire-based Rodney Purse was ordered to pay \u00a31,500 after he admitted to unacceptable professional conduct when operating without PII from 2022-2024. He has since resigned from the register.<\/p>\n
During this time, Purse worked on a second-storey extension and construction of a detached garage and carport for a client. Although conditional planning approval was obtained for this project, a neighbour\u2019s complaint after it was built led to the local authority requesting changes.<\/p>\n
After going back and forth with the council over four sets of revisions to the extension, the client enlisted a planning specialist who advised that Purse\u2019s original plans were incompatible with the council\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n
The client was selling their property and this situation had cost them approximately \u00a335,000 after putting the process \u2018in jeopardy\u2019, the ARB said.<\/p>\n
The client asked Purse to claim the \u00a335,000 on his PII \u2013 at which point it emerged that he was operating without such cover.<\/p>\n
He said at the time that he could not recall how long he had been working without PII, but in a later phone call, the client said it was for \u2018a few years\u2019.<\/p>\n
After practising architecture for 45 years, and claiming to have worked on almost 900 projects, Purse was planning to close his company and retire from the profession. The ARB has confirmed that Purse voluntarily resigned from the register on 28 July.<\/p>\n
Purse told the ARB: \u2018I have in 45 years never given cause to put any clients\u2019 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.\u2019<\/p>\n
Purse accepted all the ARB\u2019s findings and judgments. Its professional conduct committee noted that he \u2018has no previous disciplinary history\u2019 and \u2018engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions\u2019.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, it concluded the admitted allegation had the \u2018potential to diminish both the registered person\u2019s reputation and that of the profession generally\u2019, and was, therefore, \u2018sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order\u2019.<\/p>\n