Neil Eldem, of EL MAR Architects, was suspended from the Architects Registration Board (ARB) for six months due to practicing without professional indemnity insurance (PII) since 2019. The ARB's Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) found him guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.
Eldem admitted to working on 16 projects without PII, despite acknowledging his obligations under the Architects Code to inform clients about the absence of such insurance. He claimed the premium had become 'prohibitively expensive'. The PCC noted that Eldem knew his actions were wrong and that he had 'turned a blind eye' to his obligations.
Initially, the ARB attempted to reach a consent order with Eldem, involving a ÂŁ2,500 fine and dropping the dishonesty allegation. However, the consent order panel rejected this proposal, leading to the full hearing.
The committee chair rejected a request to remove the dishonesty allegation during the hearing, upholding the investigation panelâs decision. The PCC ultimately found Eldem acted dishonestly, breached the Architects Code, and was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, resulting in the six-month suspension.
Eldem's suspension commenced immediately, and he will be reinstated on October 25th. His registration number is 085492A.
Neil Eldem of Dalston-based EL MAR Architects was handed the sanction by the ARBâs 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 âprohibitively expensiveâ when the premium âincreased dramaticallyâ 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 âthe 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 positionsâ.
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 âwould have been easyâ to tell them as he enjoyed good relationships with them.
According to the PCCâs decision notice, Eldem âstated 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.â
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 âcatch upâ with him and âcause troubleâ.
The PCCâs 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 âcould not agree to the admissibility of the informationâ. 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 ÂŁ2,500 fine.
But the ARBâs 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 ânot mindedâ to proceed with the allegation of dishonesty at the hearing, âin effect reflecting the position ARB presented to the consent order panelâ.
But committee chair Martin Winter ruled this would be an âimproper use of the PCC rules for the committee to amend the particulars of the charge to remove the allegation of dishonestyâ, 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 didnât 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.
If you often open multiple tabs and struggle to keep track of them, Tabs Reminder is the solution you need. Tabs Reminder lets you set reminders for tabs so you can close them and get notified about them later. Never lose track of important tabs again with Tabs Reminder!
Try our Chrome extension today!
Share this article with your
friends and colleagues.
Earn points from views and
referrals who sign up.
Learn more