Architects ARB confused (and RIBA)

Mistermeaner

Hi

Apologies if wrong forum

Looking to engage an architect - I understand the different functions of the RIBA and ARB

What I am confused with is that 2 architect firms have been recommended to me, both appear to have decent webistes and both have demonstrated to me decent work they have done including me being able to view their drawings on the local authority planning portal so both appear completely legit

BUT.... Neither are registered on the ARB website

According to the ARB this may be a criminal offence!!

Sorry f daft questions but can someone knowledgeable advise how the ARB / RIBA work and how on earth one should go about finding an architect

Purplepenguin88

Anyone that calls themselves an architect has to be registered with the ARB. You can look up the names of any individuals on the ARB register. This is the law.
If you go to search the register you will see if they are an architect: http://www.architects-register.org.uk/
The RIBA is effectively a "club" which architects can join, and additionally practices can join.
A lot of architects don't join the RIBA, and a lot of practices arn't "chartered practices" - this does not mean they are not proper architects of firms, it just means they don't wish to be part of the RIBA club.

I'm an architect, and I'm therefore a member of the ARB and my name is on the list. I have chosen not to join the RIBA.

Hope that helps but any other questions give me a shout.

LittleMax

Are they definitely architects and not architectural technicians? Architectural technicians can still design, but are registered with the CIAT. They should make that clear though.

teneighty

As stated above the word "architect" is protected but there are lots of firms out there that do architectural work without being registered architects. It is a common misconception that everyone who draws building plans is an "architect"

If they are falsely claiming to be architects then you should report them to ARB but if they are described as architectural designers or architectural technicians/technologists etc. etc. then that is perfectly acceptable.

Personal recommendation is usually good for finding a designer but in addition I would want to know that they were members of and regulated by a professional body (CIAT, RICS etc.) and carried professional indemnity insurance. Glossy websites and pretty drawings aren't a guarantee of professional competence. Or if you really want a registered architect then get someone from ARB register.

starving_artist

Architects are registered as individuals with the ARB.
Members of the RIBA may be registered as either individuals or practices or both.

Mistermeaner

helpful - thanks all;

I assume the people i am looking at must be architectural service providers rather than full blown architects

Is there any particular advantage or disadvantage in using one or the other?

Fuzzyness

Mistermeaner wrote: »

helpful - thanks all;

I assume the people i am looking at must be architectural service providers rather than full blown architects

Is there any particular advantage or disadvantage in using one or the other?

depends on what you want them to do? if you are looking for them to provide drawings for a house extension and for these to be sufficient to obtain building regs approval they would probably be absolutely fine. if you are looking at them to design and then project manage a whole design and build project i'd look for a RIBA architect instead who is probably more qualified to fulfil that role.

ComicGeek

Fuzzyness wrote: »

depends on what you want them to do? if you are looking for them to provide drawings for a house extension and for these to be sufficient to obtain building regs approval they would probably be absolutely fine. if you are looking at them to design and then project manage a whole design and build project i'd look for a RIBA architect instead who is probably more qualified to fulfil that role.

Working with lots of RIBA architects and architectural technicians on a daily basis, I would argue that RIBA architects are best for larger, more complicated projects, but I would personally use a architectural technician for design and management on smaller, simpler projects - there is also normally a big difference in fees, and a lot of RIBA architects I work with haven't got a clue about how things are actually built!!

Fuzzyness

ComicGeek wrote: »

Working with lots of RIBA architects and architectural technicians on a daily basis, I would argue that RIBA architects are best for larger, more complicated projects, but I would personally use a architectural technician for design and management on smaller, simpler projects - there is also normally a big difference in fees, and a lot of RIBA architects I work with haven't got a clue about how things are actually built!!

i think we are agreeing. less complicated a technician would be fine but more complicated/onerous use a fully qualified RIBA one. and yes a fully qualified architect would cost you more than a technician. horses for course really.

Purplepenguin88

Speak to them, and get a price. If they generally do the kind of project you're envisioning then they'll be well set up to do it. Lots of architects are small practices and are set up for small jobs and arn't necessarily any more expensive than non-architects/technicians (it all depends on the firm, what you actually want them to do for you, and how much involvement you want them to have). Obviously (architect or not) a full design of a very high spec and then a full involvement throughout all the tendering and construction phases is going to cost a lot more than basic planning and building control plans, and helping to find a builder where they then take over the process will be cheaper.
I work in a larger firm that generally deals with larger projects and developers, and when we get small extension inquiries we help the person to find an architect more local to them who will be better suited to their needs (who can supervise the job on site easier).

lush_walrus

It's a bit like employing a book keeper as apose to an accountant. Architects spend 7 years studying to qualify. In recent years there has been the introduction of technologists who are lesser qualified. Then there are the others, who often refer to 'architectural' who may be qualified in nothing and may not belong to any governing body. If you employ them and hit an issue the recourse is tricky.

Whomever you employ make sure they have PI insurance so if they do stuff up you have a way to get some form of recourse.