An Aberdeen architect has lost his appeal against being struck off by his professional body for carrying out ‘seriously incompetent’ work.
Neil Rothnie, whose office is based at Huntly Street, had his name removed from the Architects Registration Board register last November, after it ruled he had displayed “unacceptable professional conduct and serious professional incompetence.”
This followed work, dating back to 2015, which Mr Rothnie undertook on a property in Cults in Aberdeen.
The board found he had failed to make the building watertight, leading to it springing a leak which cost as much as £50,000 to repair.
The owner reported the incident to the ARB and Mr Rothnie was subsequently struck off the regulator’s register at a conduct hearing.
He appealed the decision, but the Court of Session in Edinburgh dealt with the matter at a hearing on August 30 and confirmed it had rejected all the grounds of his appeal.
Mr Rothnie told the Press and Journal yesterday: “I have done nothing wrong, which is why I went ahead with the appeal. It’s shocking I should be in this position after nearly 40 years working as an architect.
“I’ve got a good body of work of which I am very proud [he designed such high-profile buildings as the Silver Darling and the Bieldside Inn].
The ARB’s Professional Conduct Committee had previously found Mr Rothnie guilty of serious professional incompetence and unacceptable professional conduct for the property and failing to respond adequately to communications.
This followed an earlier finding of unacceptable professional conduct against Mr Rothnie for a similar matter in 2014.
In launching his appeal, he argued that the judgement and decision to remove him from the register was unnecessary and unreasonable and claimed that the PCC members had failed to properly deal with a perception they might be biased.
However, the Court of Session concluded there was no reason to intervene with the original decision of the PCC and decided costs in the case should be awarded to ARB.
The latter organisation’s 6,000-word report into the matter said the issue dated back to May 2015, shortly after the owner had moved into the dwelling.
It added: “She noticed a hatch in the ceiling of one of the upper floor bedrooms which she considered was unusual.
“She also became aware of water ingress into an upper floor bathroom and its en-suite bathroom.
“It is alleged that she repeatedly tried to raise her concerns with the respondent by phone, text and email, and visited the respondent’s office, but he failed to adequately respond to her concern.”
After initial remedial works failed to fix the issue, the owner brought in a surveyor who said the leaky gable wall had been designed incorrectly and that there were “fundamental problems” with how it had been constructed.
