Misuse of accreditation on documentation
Discussion
Hi All,
Two years ago, an application for housing was made very close to Offa's Dyke. Because of this, the landowner had to pay to have a document called a 'Heritage Statement' prepared by a professional archaeologist. The document appeared on the Planning Portal (so it was effectively in the public domain) and on reading it, it was quite evident that it was significantly biased towards development - it played down the heritage aspects, but as the archaeologist was paid by the landowner, it was hardly surprising that it was written in a way to downplay the heritage.
On the front of the document, the author presented his qualifications (BA degree) and his professional accreditation (AIFA); whereas a degree is for life, accreditation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIFA) has to be renewed each year. The CIFA has 3 levels of membership, which are competence-based and these are attained by formal assessment.
What was ascertained, was that on the front cover of the Heritage Statement, the archaeologist cited accreditation to which he was not entitled - we checked this with the CIFA. {He cited a level which was higher than the level that he actually held}.
This fact was presented to the county planning department and they merely stated that the document was 'of the required standard'; with regard to the accreditation, they said it 'was a matter for the CIFA'. The CIFA was notified (not by the county council) and they found the archaeologist to be in breach of their regulations - they rebuked him for his actions . . . and that was all !. Despite this, the County Council still maintained the stance that the document 'was of a satisfactory standard'.
In my opinion, the County Council was wrong to ignore/overlook the accreditation issue - they shouldn't be 'cherry-picking' those parts of the document with which they agree and ignoring the rest. Essentially, if members of the public see that an individual is accredited to a specific level (at anything), that should provide them with confidence as to the ability, credibility and integrity of that individual.
The council repeatedly said that regardless of the accreditation issue, 'it met the required standard'. If I give people lifts in my car for money and act as an illegal taxi driver, does it matter that I'm not accredited - if my defence is to say I can drive 'to the required standard' ?
My query is this, should the County Council have accepted the document ? I subsequently found, that giving false accreditation is a criminal offence and on the basis of this, shouldn't the whole document have been void ?
Two years ago, an application for housing was made very close to Offa's Dyke. Because of this, the landowner had to pay to have a document called a 'Heritage Statement' prepared by a professional archaeologist. The document appeared on the Planning Portal (so it was effectively in the public domain) and on reading it, it was quite evident that it was significantly biased towards development - it played down the heritage aspects, but as the archaeologist was paid by the landowner, it was hardly surprising that it was written in a way to downplay the heritage.
On the front of the document, the author presented his qualifications (BA degree) and his professional accreditation (AIFA); whereas a degree is for life, accreditation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIFA) has to be renewed each year. The CIFA has 3 levels of membership, which are competence-based and these are attained by formal assessment.
What was ascertained, was that on the front cover of the Heritage Statement, the archaeologist cited accreditation to which he was not entitled - we checked this with the CIFA. {He cited a level which was higher than the level that he actually held}.
This fact was presented to the county planning department and they merely stated that the document was 'of the required standard'; with regard to the accreditation, they said it 'was a matter for the CIFA'. The CIFA was notified (not by the county council) and they found the archaeologist to be in breach of their regulations - they rebuked him for his actions . . . and that was all !. Despite this, the County Council still maintained the stance that the document 'was of a satisfactory standard'.
In my opinion, the County Council was wrong to ignore/overlook the accreditation issue - they shouldn't be 'cherry-picking' those parts of the document with which they agree and ignoring the rest. Essentially, if members of the public see that an individual is accredited to a specific level (at anything), that should provide them with confidence as to the ability, credibility and integrity of that individual.
The council repeatedly said that regardless of the accreditation issue, 'it met the required standard'. If I give people lifts in my car for money and act as an illegal taxi driver, does it matter that I'm not accredited - if my defence is to say I can drive 'to the required standard' ?
My query is this, should the County Council have accepted the document ? I subsequently found, that giving false accreditation is a criminal offence and on the basis of this, shouldn't the whole document have been void ?
I'm no expert but isn't the CC in effect saying that a statement of this sort made by archaeologist with the lower accreditation would have carried sufficient weight that it would have made the same decision on the same representations?
While it might take a dim view of the archaeologist claiming a status he wasn't entitled to, the Council still has to act reasonably in relation to the decisions it takes and it could open itself up to a judicial review if it doesn't.
While it might take a dim view of the archaeologist claiming a status he wasn't entitled to, the Council still has to act reasonably in relation to the decisions it takes and it could open itself up to a judicial review if it doesn't.
Regardless of whether the lower level of accreditation (the one he actually held) would have been sufficient in itself, surely the fact that the person has misrepresented their level of qualification on the official document itself then calls into question the validity of their findings in that document?
I can't see how it can just be ok to basically say "we acknowledge that you've blatantly lied on the front page of this document, but trust that everything written within it is totally on the level".
Council will do what the Council want to do ultimately though.
I can't see how it can just be ok to basically say "we acknowledge that you've blatantly lied on the front page of this document, but trust that everything written within it is totally on the level".
Council will do what the Council want to do ultimately though.
psi310398 said:
I'm no expert but isn't the CC in effect saying that a statement of this sort made by archaeologist with the lower accreditation would have carried sufficient weight that it would have made the same decision on the same representations?
That's a fair point and not one that I have previously considered. I think that the CC should have considered the motivation behind the action and whether the assumption could be made, that the document was a fair reflection of the situation. They might also have considered whether the public would have confidence in the decision-making process.
psi310398 said:
While it might take a dim view of the archaeologist claiming a status he wasn't entitled to . . .
In a sense, I think that the CC had to stand up for the guy - I found that he was on the list of the CC's 'approved contractors'.psi310398 said:
. . . . the Council still has to act reasonably in relation to the decisions it takes and it could open itself up to a judicial review if it doesn't.
Would judicial review be likely, given that the CIFA found the archaeologist to be in breach of their By-laws ? And, wouldn't ignoring the issue, mean that they (the CC) would effectively be condoning something that constitutes a criminal offence ?
NickofName said:
I can't see how it can just be ok to basically say "we acknowledge that you've blatantly lied on the front page of this document, but trust that everything written within it is totally on the level".
I'm not sure the Council could go that far. The archaeologist was qualified, after all, just not quite as much as the document purported.What if there was no deliberate misrepresentation and he had been using a pro forma of his firm's and failed to spot the error? It happens. Why, after all, would be misrepresent himself?
Careless? Yes. Sloppy? Yes. Dishonest? Not sure I'd want to convict without more data.
pubrunner said:
I think that the CC should have considered the motivation behind the action and whether the assumption could be made, that the document was a fair reflection of the situation. They might also have considered whether the public would have confidence in the decision-making process.
I think they probably did and decided that the defects weren't strong enough to change the decision.psi310398 said:
. . . . the Council still has to act reasonably in relation to the decisions it takes and it could open itself up to a judicial review if it doesn't.
pubrunner said:
Would judicial review be likely, given that the CIFA found the archaeologist to be in breach of their By-laws ?
And, wouldn't ignoring the issue, mean that they (the CC) would effectively be condoning something that constitutes a criminal offence ?
On the first point, the JR would be in regard to the Council's actions and the CIFA action, while interesting, would only have a tangential bearing on that. The test would be how reasonable etc the Council's actions were having regard for the relevant facts.And, wouldn't ignoring the issue, mean that they (the CC) would effectively be condoning something that constitutes a criminal offence ?
On your second, there was no conviction in a criminal sense but a disciplinary sanction by a professional body, so I'm not sure you (or the Council) could go so far as to characterise the archaeologist's actions as criminal in this particular case.
NickofName said:
Regardless of whether the lower level of accreditation (the one he actually held) would have been sufficient in itself, surely the fact that the person has misrepresented their level of qualification on the official document itself then calls into question the validity of their findings in that document?
That would be my impression, but it wasn't one which was shared by either the CC or English Heritage.I should mention, that although the CC Planning Department recommended approval, the application was rejected by the CCouncillors and (following an appeal) by the Planning Inspectorate.
What I have to query, is why he gave false accreditation ? What I found really interesting, was that when I did a search on the internet by putting in the archaeologists name, I found instances where he used his actual and his false level of accreditation - in other words, he'd done this before.
NickofName said:
I can't see how it can just be ok to basically say "we acknowledge that you've blatantly lied on the front page of this document, but trust that everything written within it is totally on the level".
Indeed; folk are well-aware of this issue and are incensed that the CC aren't following standards that they'd expect in others.NickofName said:
Council will do what the Council want to do ultimately though.
It would appear that's the case.psi310398 said:
What if there was no deliberate misrepresentation and he had been using a pro forma of his firm's and failed to spot the error? It happens. Why, after all, would be misrepresent himself?
Careless? Yes. Sloppy? Yes. Dishonest? Not sure I'd want to convict without more data.
As I mentioned in a previous message, it was found that he'd done the same thing previously - we found instances of this, going back 12 years.Careless? Yes. Sloppy? Yes. Dishonest? Not sure I'd want to convict without more data.
psi310398 said:
The archaeologist was qualified, after all, just not quite as much as the document purported.
IMO, it makes a mockery of the CIFA's competence-based accreditation system; interestingly, the higher the level of accreditation, the greater the fee that is payable to the CIFA. The archaeologist will have saved himself hundreds of pounds over the previous 10-12 years.psi310398 said:
. . . there was no conviction in a criminal sense but a disciplinary sanction by a professional body, so I'm not sure you (or the Council) could go so far as to characterise the archaeologist's actions as criminal in this particular case.
True, but where investigated, misuse of accreditation is classified as a criminal offence. {Had a criminal investigation been undertaken, the findings of the professional body wouldn't have helped his case}. Edited by pubrunner on Friday 20th April 15:54
pubrunner said:
Would judicial review be likely, given that the CIFA found the archaeologist to be in breach of their By-laws ?
And, wouldn't ignoring the issue, mean that they (the CC) would effectively be condoning something that constitutes a criminal offence ?
You only get 7 weeks to put in a JR and you run a significant costs risk.........I would let it go, the CC would have their own in house heritage person who will have had to pass the reportAnd, wouldn't ignoring the issue, mean that they (the CC) would effectively be condoning something that constitutes a criminal offence ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff