So – do you need and ‘Architect’ or an ‘architectural consultant’…?
There is a common misconception that an ‘architectural consultant’ is more qualified than an Architect.
This is complete nonsense, but given that a medical Consultant is more highly qualified than a Doctor its a mistake that can be easily understood!
The title ‘Architect‘ is protected under Law (The Architects Act 1997) and can ONLY be used by a person on the Architects Registration Board Register who has demonstrated not only that they have the proper qualifications, but are competent and also carry Professional Indemnity Insurance.
ANYONE can call themselves an ‘architectural consultant’ or an ‘architectural designer’ any other sort of self-important sounding name.This does not make them an Architect; this does not mean that they have any suitable qualifications; this does not mean that they can design what you need; this does not mean that they understand planning legislation; this does not mean that they understand construction law; this does not mean that they understand contract law; the list goes on….
Anyone calling themselves an Architect who isn’t can be, and often are, prosecuted under the Law. This is carried out by the statutory regulatory body The Architects Registration Board.
Anyone suggesting that as an ‘architectural consultant’ etc that they are “more qualified than an Architect” is not only wrong but they are deliberately trying to mislead you – ask yourself why…
Checking out people’s claims is simple – log on to the Architects Registration Board website and check the Register by clicking here.
If they’re not on it, then they are NOT an Architect.