The Mike Hooper Architects title misuse case has resulted in a conviction at Plymouth Magistrates’ Court, where Michael Simon Hooper, of Architects Registration Board (ARB) enforcement proceedings, was found guilty on 10 September of breaching sections 20 and 21 of the Architects Act 1997. Hooper was fined £2,200 and ordered to pay approximately £9,000 in legal costs after continuing to describe himself as an architect across multiple online platforms following his removal from the Architects Register.
Erasure and the events that led to prosecution
Hooper’s registration had already been ended before the prosecution was initiated. According to ARB’s published Professional Conduct Committee decision, a Professional Conduct Committee hearing running from 27 January to 5 February 2025 resulted in his erasure from the Architects Register. The practice operates from 3b The Old Dairy, Paddons Row, Tavistock, Devon.
Following erasure, ARB’s investigation found that Hooper continued to use the protected title ‘architect’ on his practice website, his LinkedIn profile, and across a number of third-party online directories. ARB first contacted Hooper in May 2025, setting out the legal position and giving him a reasonable opportunity to address the matter. Although some changes were made in response, the misuse had not been fully resolved by August 2025, at which point ARB issued a court summons.
The court, in reaching its verdict, found that Hooper was culpable and that the ongoing breach caused harm both to the public and to ARB in its statutory role as regulator of architects in the UK. The use of the title ‘architect’ is protected under the Architects Act 1997; only those on the Architects Register may lawfully describe themselves as such.
ARB’s proportionate approach to Mike Hooper Architects title misuse
ARB director of professional standards Helen Ransome set out the board’s position: ‘Most concerns about misuse of the title “architect” can be resolved without court action.’ She described ARB’s approach as explaining the legal requirements, giving people a reasonable opportunity to correct matters, and escalating where that does not happen.
On the decision to prosecute, Ransome said: ‘In this case, the title continued to be used despite repeated engagement, so prosecution was appropriate. We will continue to use our powers proportionately and focus our regulatory action where it can make the greatest contribution to public protection.’
The case is a reminder that erasure from the register does not merely end an individual’s right to practise under ARB oversight, it also removes the right to use the title in any commercial or professional context, including digital profiles and third-party directory listings that can persist long after a registration lapses. The proliferation of online platforms makes ongoing monitoring of title misuse both more complex and more visible simultaneously.
The wider regulatory context
ARB had not successfully brought a prosecution for misuse of the protected title since 22 November 2021, making this the board’s first successful title-misuse conviction in nearly four years. The case underlines that the pathway to prosecution is available and will be used where graduated engagement fails to produce compliance.
Details of previous ARB Professional Conduct Committee decisions, including the Hooper determination, are published on ARB’s website as part of its transparency obligations. Anyone wishing to verify whether an individual holds current registration can search the Architects Register directly through ARB’s online portal.
For practitioners facing erasure, or for those who employ or commission individuals on the basis of architectural credentials, the Hooper case makes the compliance obligation clear: the title must be removed from all public-facing materials promptly and completely, or enforcement action, including criminal prosecution, remains a live prospect.
