Watchdog strikes off dishonest architect
AN ARCHITECT whose dishonesty cost investors huge sums of money has been struck off.
Stuart Duffy, of Westhead, near Ormskirk, was removed from the Architects’ Registration Board (ARB) after signing documents to say flats were ready for use when, in reality, they were no more than building sites, some covered in rain water and bird droppings.
Duffy’s firm, KDP Architects, was investigated by the ARB’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) after complaints from numerous investors.
Those complaining said that, as a result of the certification, payments were made for construction work that had never been carried out.
One man, named only as Mr H, paid £190,000 for a flat at the Richmond Hotel, in Liverpool.
But it was far from ready and did not even have electrical installations or plumbing. It also had no kitchen or bathroom fixtures and lacked even a ceiling or flooring.
An investigation into another property Duffy had signed off, a residential development in Newcastle-under-Lyme, called the Sky Building, found it had a lack of any fire protection, exposed steelwork and external cladding which was not watertight.
Duffy had denied that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct but under crossexamination he accepted that the properties had not reached the stage of practical completion, and he had acted dishonestly in certifying that they had.
He claimed, however, that the Liverpool properties had been certified only as a result of pressure from the director of Middle England Development Ltd, with whom he was dealing.
According to an ARB report of the investigation, the director was “an intimidating and menacing individual, with a criminal past” and had pressured him into completing the certificates.
Duffy also claimed that the Newcastle-underLyme development had only been certified to maintain liquidity in the project and prevent the investors from losing their money.
The report states: “The PCC found that Mr Duffy had acted dishonestly, and was therefore guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.
“While it accepted his explanation in respect of dealing with the complaints he had received, in knowingly signing off properties as complete when he knew they were not, Mr Duffy had fallen substantially short of the conduct expected of an architect.
“That he had repeated the dishonest act in 2017 only aggravated the seriousness of the failing.
“He had chosen to appease others over his professional obligations.
“In considering sanction, the PCC took into account Mr Duffy’s previous unblemished record and co-operation with the investigation as a mitigating factor, but this was weighed against his limited insight, the serious impact his actions had caused others, and the repetition of his dishonest statements over a significant period of time.”