I bought a flat in Gozo, fulfilling a dream I had always had. In a way the purchase was forced on me, however: when, as the financial markets were in turmoil, experts started wondering about the euro, I thought I had better do something about it. I was not going to let my life savings go down the drain because of doubts about the euro’s future and the (then) forthcoming referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.

I am in my twilight years and thought the flat would be a good investment for my children. The modest, two-bedroomed flat is a jewel as far as I am concerned. It is a corner building, so well lit up naturally that all day long I do not need any electric lights, from the break of dawn to dusk.

Within days of signing the contract, I applied for the water and electricity meters and got my first shock. The very attractive aluminium should not have been there: the planning authority permit was for timber apertures. My application for the meters was rejected.

I looked up the planning authority plans, submitted to me by the architect, and there it was: “Windows and doors: timber (beige).” I had not bothered to look up the plans. It would have been useless anyway; the contract had been signed. But now that I did bother to look up the plans, I also found out that the facade was missing a window.

In applying for the meters, for which I paid €60, if I remember correctly, the architect – is he a swindler? – ticked the appropriate box in the application form: “Structural works have been completed and that the part of the development specified above has been carried out in complete accordance with the terms, conditions and limitations of the development permission and with the approved plans and drawings...”

Now that’s an outright lie, isn’t it? The planning authority permit stipulated timber apertures. I have aluminium. And there is a window missing.

How on earth could the architect have given the green light to the builder? The architect got his professional fees for his services, I guess, but had he ever gone on site to check the progress of the works and whether the works were in line with the planning authority permit?

The Chamber of Architects does not say that some of its own members are responsible for infringements

The architect knew, if he is worth his salt, that, though I was going to pay €60 on submission of the application for meters, the application would be rejected. Should he not refund me that fee? Why didn’t he point out to me that the application would be rejected because of the aluminium? Guilty conscience, perhaps?

Hell has now broken loose because the government is granting an amnesty for building irregularities in the development zones. The furore is also being stoked by the Chamber of Architects. The chamber does not say that some of its own members are responsible for the infringements.

Are these irresponsible architects liable at law for being so shoddy in their profession? Can their victims take them to court?

Before I bought the flat, I did not check if all was fine with the building permit. Hell, this structure was approved by a moustached architect who was said to be at the top of his profession.

Had I commissioned another architect to see if all was OK with the building permit, would he have pointed out that there were irregularities? That, in fact, the building did not fully observe the conditions which the planning authority had set out in its permit? Would my architect have drawn my attention to the irregularities? Or would he have closed one eye, as the building’s architect had done? You know... chummy chummy, Mafia-like. Is one architect going to report another about infringements?

Have you ever heard of a lawyer suing another? Some professional people are dirty. They flash around in these posh cars and live in these expensive villas from the money they earn from clients they wrong.

With the amnesty, my investment should turn out to be safe. There is a penalty to be paid because of the infringements, of course. That is only reasonable.

But should it not be the architect who pays the penalty? It was him who sanctioned the building after all. Will the Chamber of Architects tell its members to see to it, that they should pay the penalty for infringements for which they are responsible?

Now, if I were a former president of either of the parties in Parliament, or any other senior official of either, I am sure I could pull some strings and have the irregularities glossed over and given the OK, without the need of an amnesty.

But everyone does not have strings to pull.

Roger Mifsud is a former journalist.