Neil Eldem of Dalston-based EL MAR Architects was handed the sanction by the ARB’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) after a three-day hearing.

The panel heard he had contacted the ARB in August 2023 to report a County Court judgement against him that he would not be able to settle.

In response to questions from the board, the architect admitted he had not held PII since 2019. Eldem explained that the cover had become ‘prohibitively expensive’ when the premium ‘increased dramatically’ that year.

The board said he admitted he had worked on 16 projects while not covered by the insurance, and accepted he told clients during this time that he was bound by the Architects Code.

Clause 7.6 of the code states ‘the architect shall inform the client if [PII] insurance ceases to be available at commercially reasonable terms … in order that the architect and client can discuss the best means of protecting their respective positions’.

Eldem is also said to have confirmed a good working knowledge of the code.

The ARB said Eldem gave evidence that he was aware of his obligations to tell his clients about his insurance status, and that it ‘would have been easy’ to tell them as he enjoyed good relationships with them.

According to the PCC’s decision notice, Eldem ‘stated that his conduct was reckless and that he had turned a blind eye to his obligations regarding PII. He stated that he did not have any intention to mislead or cheat his clients.’

The ARB said that when questioned by the conduct committee, Eldem admitted he knew he was doing the wrong thing. He was quoted as saying he knew his failure to have insurance cover would ‘catch up’ with him and ‘cause trouble’.

The PCC’s published decision revealed that the ARB had previously undertaken a process towards agreeing a consent order with the architect.

Initially, his bundle of evidence for the hearing had been redacted because the board ‘could not agree to the admissibility of the information’. It emerged that details of the failed attempt to reach a consent order had been removed.

When these redactions were reversed, it became clear that the ARB had previously sought an agreement with Eldem. This would have scrapped an allegation of dishonesty and suggested a £2,500 fine.

But the ARB’s consent order panel rejected this proposed deal, meaning the matter proceeded to a committee hearing.

Case presenter Leonard Wigg then indicated he had instructions that the ARB was ‘not minded’ to proceed with the allegation of dishonesty at the hearing, ‘in effect reflecting the position ARB presented to the consent order panel’.

But committee chair Martin Winter ruled this would be an ‘improper use of the PCC rules for the committee to amend the particulars of the charge to remove the allegation of dishonesty’, adding that an investigation panel had approved the particulars and the consent order panel had rejected the removal of the allegation.

Eventually, the panel concluded that Eldem did act dishonestly in not informing clients about his lack of PII cover. He was also found to have breached the Architects Code by not having adequate PII cover, and to have failed to inform clients that he didn’t have the right insurance in place.

He was found to be guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and handed a six-month suspension from the register.

Elden will be reinstated on 25 October this year. His registration number is 085492A. The AJ has been unable to contact him.