'Menacing' property boss with 'criminal past' forced architect to sign off unsafe rooms at trendy Liverpool hotel

An architect who approved apartments at a Liverpool hotel which did not have smoke alarms or fire alarms claimed he was 'pressured' by a property boss with a 'criminal past.'

Stuart Duffy, who worked for Liverpool based KDP Architects, was erased from the register of architects by the Architects Registration Board (ARB) for approving rooms which were not safe.

Mr Duffy, from Ormskirk, was struck off in January but had a right of appeal. The ECHO understand the time frame for an appeal has now expired.

The ARB found that Mr Duffy  approved completion certificates for several rooms at the Richmond Apart Hotel in Liverpool  which did not have crucial features such as fire alarms and smoke alarms. 

The hotel is made up of apartments which have been bought by investors. Mr Duffy approved the certificates in 2013.

The owners of the Richmond Hotel declined to comment.  The building currently has an up to date fire safety certificate.

Richmond Apart-Hotel on Hatton Garden, Liverpool. (Liverpool Echo)

However the ECHO can now reveal that Mr Duffy claimed he was 'pressured' into signing off the completion cetficates in 2013 by a director of Middle England Developments.

A report by the  ARB's professional conduct commitee read: "He stated that his reason for issuing the certificate was because a director of the development company, Middle England Development Limited (MED,) with whom he was dealing, was an intimidating and menacing individual, with a criminal past, and that he had pressured him into completing the certificates.

He stated that at a meeting in early May 2013, that director had stated that if the certificates were not issued, then KDP Architects would not  receive their outstanding fees in excess of £215,000, and the Respondent would  be  held personally accountable for any delay or failure to complete the project. 

The Committee was mindful that the relevant director is not a party to these  proceedings, nor has he been given the opportunity to comment on statements  made to the Committee about his character.

Stuart Duffy was erased from by the Architects Registration Board (ARB) for approving rooms which were not safe (ITV News)

Following a number of complaints the ARB appointed an inspector to view the rooms at the Richmond that Mr Duffy signed off.  The inspector found that:

• No doors had been fitted to the apartments;
• The steelwork was exposed and had no fire protection;
• The doors in the patio door frames had not been installed, and the openings were loosely covered in plywood;
• The upstand at the outer edges of the roof terrace had no adequate guarding to protect against falls from above;
• The apartments had no electrical installation and no plumbing, no bathroom and no kitchen fittings;
• There was no fire alarm or smoke detection system in place;
• There was no plasterboard to ceilings or walls and no insulation on external walls;
• There was no plasterboard on the studwork;
• The whole area was strewn with rubbish and building materials;
• There were bird droppings on the floors and on other surfaces;

• There were several areas of damp patches where rainwater was gaining egress;

In respect of Apartment 412, the studwork on the corridor side had no insulation and no plasterboard to the apartment side, which he stated, may cause a weakness in any fire compartmentation;

In respect of Apartment 413, there was a window missing from a larger opening in the bedroom on the fourth floor; The corridor serving all three apartments was not complete and electrical cables within the corridor ceiling had been left in bundles.

Richmond Apart-Hotel on Hatton Garden, Liverpool. (Liverpool Echo)

The ARB also found that Mr Duffy also signed off the Sky building in the Stoke area as complete four years later where the construction work had not been properly completed.

Their report reads: "Respondent’s practice had acted for the director’s company on five projects and had earned itself over £1m in fees. MED’s business accounted for about 75% of  the practice’s turnover. On the basis of the evidence before the Committee, it  was not satisfied that the level of pressure exerted was so extreme as to justify  the Respondent disregarding his professional obligations. Even if it were  accepted by the Committee that the duress was sufficient to justify his actions, it  fails to explain why the Respondent should repeat his dishonest behaviour some  four years later in circumstances where duress was not an issue."

Mr Duffy was erased from the ARB's register due to his 'repeated dishonesty.' He can apply to be restored to the register in two years time.

In response to questions put to him in cross-examination, the Respondent  accepted MED was an important client whose work provided approximately 75%  of the practice’s fees. KDP had undertaken 5 developments for MED and had  earned fees in excess of £1m. However, at the relevant time, the Respondent  was owed a substantial amount in outstanding fees. The Respondent accepted  that he was prepared to issue the practical completion certificates to keep the  director happy, and that he put that before consideration of his professional  obligations. Failure to have done so would have prevented the additional  necessary funding being made available to complete the project."