Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"architecturally designed"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "architecturally designed"

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10849353


    The Real Estate Agents Authority has issued a new decision overturning its previous findings against eight Barfoot & Thompson agents who advertised houses as architect-designed. In all cases, the designers were not registered with the Registered Architects Board. And in all but one case, they did not have tertiary qualifications as an architect.

    The authority's complaints assessment committee found the agents guilty of unsatisfactory conduct, but the findings were quashed when they appealed to its disciplinary tribunal. The tribunal found a designer could be described as an architect even if they were unregistered or did not have a degree in architecture. It said the test was whether the designer had the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out the work.

    But the tribunal also cautioned against misrepresentation. "It is very disturbing that people who are no more than architectural designers or draftspeople are being held out as prominent architects," it said. "Such a misconception in the mind of a purchaser could lead to the purchaser paying a much higher price ... That type of possibility must be eliminated."

    Registered Architects Board chief executive Paul Jackman said the tribunal's decision was "dangerous and illogical". "Strangely, they've gone and flipped around and said, 'You're an architect unless your building falls down' - and that's crackpot. "The plain fact is that misrepresenting the designer of a house as an architect is fraudulent and is done to talk up the price of a house in order to enrich the real estate agent and the vendor at the expense of a buyer."

    Since 2009, the REAA has referred 41 complaints about the issue to its complaints assessment committee.

    - APNZ

  • #2
    If the person who draws the plans:

    1. Thinks their artistic abilities outweigh your personal requirements.
    2. Uses words like "makes a statement about...." and "reflects the surrounding ambience".
    3. Wears stupid brightly-coloured framed glasses.
    4. Ponders a building, head-cocked, left hand on chin.
    5. Sports unusual facial hair
    6. Is someone you'd not really fancy having a beer with.

    Then he can be called an architect.

    Comment


    • #3
      I haven't read the tribunal's decision, but if the Herald's report is accurate, then it's bound to be a strange one. Paraphrasing the article, the decision was 'the conduct was not unsatisfactory but it was not satisfactory'. If the tribunal wanted to eliminate the possibility of a recurrance, it had the perfect opportunity. (Barfoots seem to have a charmed run in the tribunal, as I read a decision earlier this year where they were allowed to use old agreement forms.)

      Comment


      • #4
        7. Drives a Saab.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hardly surprising is it? Most professional type bodies seem to be there only to protect their own so it looks like a great decision all round.

          Comment


          • #6
            Green Fish,

            You are crawling out of the woodwork after a long break from PT . Good to have to back. You were a big contibutor to these forums. Hope you keep it up.

            Where have you been?

            Shane

            Comment


            • #7
              It is a bit odd to pick on the phrase "architect-designed".

              Many of the volume home builders, both now and in the past, have had a design drawn up by an architect.
              They have then proceeded to build dozens if not hundreds of houses to that standard design.

              The architect involved, having done his work at the start of the project and got paid, has obviously had no further involvement with these houses, yet each and every one of these houses could legitimately claim to be
              "architect-designed".


              Comment


              • #8
                Architecturally designed?


                I think of an architecturally designed house as a house where the builder has had no input into the design.
                Usually results in a better looking house.

                Comment


                • #9
                  ^
                  and a more expensive one)

                  the last thing REA want is restrictions on their traditional freedom to streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch the truth

                  after all the essence of advertising is to dress up a pig's ear into a silk purse

                  you just have to compare your macdonalds burger with the picture above the counter

                  to see the laws on "truth in advertsing" were written by admen
                  have you defeated them?
                  your demons

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I suggest that it's very appropriate that
                    wears a head scarf and has a pony tail
                    be added to TLL's list.
                    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      http://decisions.dotnous.com/reaa/pd...ermination.pdf

                      The joke is at paragraphs 99, 100 and 101. It is difficult to imagine how someone could write the first two paragraphs and then go on to write the third. The only way to reconcile the tribunal's conflicting assertions is to take it as saying: "we expect real estate licensees ... to be very careful in their representations about property designers", except Barfoot & Thompson.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Architecturally designed is fine by me but saying that a house was designed by a prominent architect when it wasn't is just wrong. Still, I would look at the house and buy it if I liked it not because it was designed by So and So.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X