Key Points
- David Wilson Bell, 67, a registered architect and former director of Fouin & Bell Architects in Edinburgh, has been struck off by the Architects Registration Board (ARB).
- Bell pleaded guilty in May 2025 to embezzling over £160,000 from his sister, Janet Mann, who suffers from dementia, using his power of attorney.
- He abused his position of trust between 24 April 2012 and 15 January 2020 to spend her savings on luxury holidays in the USA and Cuba, private dental work, and cosmetic treatments.
- Bell’s wife, Elizabeth Bell, 73, had her not guilty plea accepted in court.
- On 5 June 2025, Bell was sentenced to 225 hours of unpaid community work and ordered to repay £160,998 within one year.
- Fouin & Bell Architects, where Bell was listed as director, entered liquidation in 2023.
- An ARB professional conduct committee, meeting on 20-21 January 2026, concluded that Bell’s conviction undermined his professional integrity due to the abuse of trust over a vulnerable person.
- Bell has now been stripped of his architect title and removed from the ARB register.
Edinburgh (Edinburgh Daily News) January 26, 2026 – The Architects Registration Board (ARB) has struck off David Wilson Bell, a 67-year-old Edinburgh architect convicted of embezzling more than £160,000 from his dementia-suffering sister, Janet Mann, using his power of attorney. Bell, previously listed as director at Fouin & Bell Architects—which went into liquidation in 2023—pleaded guilty in May 2025 to stealing her savings for personal luxuries including holidays and cosmetic treatments. An ARB professional conduct committee, after deliberating on 20-21 January 2026, ruled that his actions brought his professional integrity into serious question.
Who is David Wilson Bell and What Did He Do?
David Wilson Bell, aged 67 and based in Edinburgh, was a registered architect with the ARB and served as director of the now-defunct Fouin & Bell Architects. As reported across multiple outlets covering the ARB decision, Bell held power of attorney jointly with his wife, Elizabeth Bell, over his sister Janet Mann’s financial affairs from 24 April 2012 until 15 January 2020. During this period, Mann, who suffers from dementia, was particularly vulnerable, placing Bell in a position of significant trust and responsibility.
Bell admitted to misappropriating £160,998 from Mann’s savings for his own benefit. Court records indicate the funds were spent on high-end holidays to the USA and Cuba, private dental work, luxury products, and cosmetic treatments. On 5 June 2025, following his guilty plea in May 2025 at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Bell received a sentence of 225 hours of unpaid community work and a one-year deadline to repay the full amount stolen.
Elizabeth Bell, 73, faced related charges but had her not guilty plea accepted by the court, escaping conviction. The ARB’s professional conduct committee, in its ruling on 20-21 January 2026, emphasised that Bell’s criminal conviction involved a blatant abuse of trust towards a vulnerable individual, irreparably damaging his standing as an architect.
Why Did the ARB Strike Off David Wilson Bell?
The ARB’s decision to remove David Wilson Bell from the register stemmed directly from the gravity of his conviction. The professional conduct committee determined that embezzling from a dementia patient under power of attorney constituted a profound breach of integrity. ARB guidelines require architects to uphold the highest standards of honesty and trustworthiness, particularly when dealing with vulnerable clients or persons.
As detailed in the ARB’s official statement following the 20-21 January 2026 hearing, the committee concluded:
“Bell’s conviction brought his professional integrity into question, having involved the abuse of a position of trust and responsibility over a vulnerable person.”
This ruling aligns with ARB protocols, where serious criminal convictions—especially those involving dishonesty—trigger deregistration to protect public confidence in the profession.
The committee’s findings highlighted the eight-year span of the embezzlement (2012-2020), during which Bell exploited his legal authority without apparent remorse until his guilty plea. No mitigating factors were deemed sufficient to preserve his registration, leading to his immediate striking off.
What Happened to Fouin & Bell Architects?
Fouin & Bell Architects, the Edinburgh-based practice where David Wilson Bell was director, ceased operations after entering liquidation in 2023. While the firm’s collapse predates Bell’s conviction, his role as a key figure raises questions about its stability. Public records list Bell prominently in the practice, which specialised in architectural services, but no direct link has been established between his personal misconduct and the liquidation.
The ARB investigation focused solely on Bell’s individual conduct, not the firm’s broader operations. However, the striking off notice serves as a warning to the profession about personal accountability, even post-liquidation. Clients and stakeholders of the former practice have not publicly commented, but the ARB’s action ensures Bell can no longer practise under the protected title of architect anywhere in the UK.
What Was the Court’s Response to the Embezzlement?
Edinburgh Sheriff Court handled Bell’s case with a focus on both punishment and restitution. After pleading guilty in May 2025 to charges of embezzlement, David Wilson Bell appeared for sentencing on 5 June 2025. The sheriff imposed 225 hours of unpaid work as an alternative to custody, reflecting the non-violent nature of the crime but its deep betrayal of family trust.
Crucially, Bell was ordered to repay the exact sum of £160,998 within one year, underscoring the court’s priority on victim compensation. Janet Mann, the victim, received no direct quote in proceedings, but her dementia rendered her unable to manage her affairs, amplifying the offence’s severity. Elizabeth Bell’s accepted not guilty plea spared her similar scrutiny, with the court finding insufficient evidence against her.
Sheriffs often opt for community payback orders in white-collar crimes involving family, balancing rehabilitation with deterrence. Bell’s sentence avoided imprisonment, but the ARB’s subsequent deregistration imposes a harsher professional penalty.
How Did Power of Attorney Enable the Theft?
Power of attorney (PoA) grants authority to manage another’s finances, intended as a safeguard for those like Janet Mann, incapacitated by dementia. Bell and his wife received lasting PoA on 24 April 2012, valid until revoked on 15 January 2020. This legal tool allowed seamless access to Mann’s savings, which Bell diverted to personal luxuries over nearly eight years.
Experts note PoA abuse is alarmingly common among vulnerable adults, with embezzlement often undetected until audits or family interventions. In Bell’s case, transactions for USA and Cuba holidays, private dental work, and cosmetics were traceable, leading to his May 2025 guilty plea. The revocation in 2020 likely followed discovery of the discrepancies.
UK law mandates PoA holders act in the donor’s best interests; Bell’s self-enrichment violated this fiduciary duty. The ARB committee cited this as central to their integrity ruling.
What Are the Implications for Architects and Vulnerable Clients?
This case spotlights risks in professional trust, particularly for architects who may handle client funds or vulnerable relatives. The ARB’s swift action on 20-21 January 2026 reinforces that criminal convictions for dishonesty lead to deregistration, safeguarding public faith.
For families, it underscores PoA oversight needs—regular audits and third-party involvement can prevent abuse. Bell’s striking off bars him from using the architect title, though he could pursue non-regulated work. Repayment enforcement remains with courts, not ARB.
Broader Context: Rising PoA Abuse Cases?
While specific to Bell, this incident reflects wider concerns over financial elder abuse in the UK. Dementia affects over 900,000 people, many reliant on PoA. Charity reports highlight thousands of annual cases, often family-perpetrated like Bell’s.
The ARB decision, reported neutrally across outlets, prompts calls for stricter PoA vetting. No further ARB comments have emerged, but the case exemplifies accountability in regulated professions. Janet Mann’s plight humanises the statistics, with her savings plundered during vulnerability.
In total, this saga—from 2012 misuse to 2026 deregistration—serves as a stark reminder of trust’s fragility. Bell’s journey from director to disbarred underscores justice’s reach, even years later.
