A+ A-
Select Page

Download this page as a PDF

Mr Sandip Singh Chudha

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

SANDIP SINGH CHUDA (073407A)

Held on

22 November – 1 December 2023

18 December 2023

  21-22 December 2023

Via

Video Conference

_______________

Present:

Margaret Obi (Chair)
David Kann (PCC Architect Member)
Jules Griffiths (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

Public Version of Determination

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) was represented by Mr Greg Foxsmith of Kingsley Napley LLP (“the Presenter”).

Mr Sandip Chudha (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and represented himself.

 

The Professional Conduct Committee (“the Committee”) determined that the Registered Person is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct (“UPC”).  It did so, having found the following particulars of the Allegation proved:

1) In respect of Project A: a. the Registered Person failed to issue the client with adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code; b. the Registered Person failed to adequately communicate with the client regarding the work completed on her behalf; c. the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.

2) In respect of Project B: a. the Registered Person failed to issue the client with adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code; b. the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.

3) In respect of Project C: a. the Registered Person failed to issue the client with adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code; b. the Registered Person failed to: i. complete work without undue delay and/or within an agreed timescale; ii. keep the client adequately informed about the work completed on his behalf; c. The Registered Person failed to deal with a complaint appropriately.

4) In respect of Project D: a. the Registered Person failed to issue the client adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code; b. the Registered Person failed to: i. complete work without undue delay; ii. keep the client adequately informed about the work completed on her behalf; c. the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.

5) In respect of Project E: a. the Registered Person failed to issue adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code; b. the Registered Person failed to: i. complete work without undue delay; ii. keep the client adequately informed about the work completed on his behalf; c. the Registered Person failed to return the “as existing” drawings that were lent to him, contrary to Standard 4.6 of the Code; d. the Registered Person failed to adequately and/or appropriately deal with a complaint, contrary to Standard 10 of the Code.

6) The Registered Person failed to correspond in a manner befitting a regulated professional;

7) Contrary to Standard 8.4, the Registered Person failed to provide evidence that he had appropriate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) by 10 August 2022 as requested by the ARB;

8) Contrary to Standard 9.2, the Registered Person did not notify ARB that a company or companies he was a director of were wound up;

9) Contrary to Standard 11.1, the Registered Person failed to co‐operate with regulatory requirements and investigations fully, promptly and within a specified timescale.

 

The sanction imposed by the Committee was erasure.

 

Allegation

  1. The allegation made against the Registered Person is that he is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct. The ARB relies upon the following particulars in support of the allegation

1) In respect of Project A:

       a. the Registered Person failed to issue the client with adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code;

      b. the Registered Person failed to adequately communicate with the client regarding the work completed on her behalf;

      c. the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.

2) In respect of Project B:

      a. the Registered Person failed to issue the client with adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code;

      b. the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.

 

3) In respect of Project C:

     a. the Registered Person failed to issue the client with adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code;

     b. the Registered Person failed to:

           i.  complete work without undue delay and/or within an agreed timescale;

          ii. keep the client adequately informed about the work completed on his behalf;

    c. The Registered Person failed to deal with a complaint appropriately.

4) In respect of Project D:

   a. the Registered Person failed to issue the client adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code;

   b. the Registered Person failed to:

          i. complete work without undue delay and/or within an agreed timescale;

         ii. keep the client adequately informed about the work completed on her behalf;

    c. the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.

5) In respect of Project E:

   a. the Registered Person failed to issue adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Code;

   b. the Registered Person failed to:

        i. complete work without undue delay and/or within an agreed timescales;

       ii. keep the client adequately informed about the work completed on his behalf;

   c. the Registered Person failed to return the “as existing” drawings that were lent to him, contrary to Standard 4.6 of the Code;

   d. the Registered Person failed to adequately and/or appropriately deal with a complaint, contrary to Standard 10 of the Code.

 

6) The Registered Person failed to correspond in a manner befitting a regulated professional;

7) Contrary to Standard 8.4, the Registered Person failed to ensure he has adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance and/or he failed to provide evidence that he had appropriate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) by 10 August 2022 as requested by the ARB; (as amended)

8) Contrary to Standard 9.2, the Registered Person did not notify ARB that a company or companies he was a director of were wound up;

9) Contrary to Standard 11.1, the Registered Person failed to co‐operate with regulatory requirements and investigations fully, promptly and within a specified timescale.

 

Background

  1. The Registered Person is a registered Architect. He runs his architectural business as a sole trader under the name – Tudor Agencies.

 

  1. The Allegation is based on five complaints that were made to ARB between February 2022 and October 2022. The background circumstances, as set out below, are predominantly based on the report prepared by Kingsley Napley. In preparing the report reliance was placed on the witness statements of the various Referrers. The Presenter relied on this report during his opening of the case.

 

Project A – Ibitoye

 

  1. The Referrer, Korede Ibitoye, engaged the Registered Person in September 2021 to provide drawings for a loft and basement extension to her property (“Property A”).

 

  1. The Referrer met with the Registered Person for a site visit on 1 September 2021, at which time it was agreed that the Registered Person would assist the Referrer. The Referrer received a fee proposal on 1 September 2021, but no further terms were issued to her. An initial deposit of £1,250 was paid in exchange for proposed drawings being provided to her for approval by 11 September 2021.

 

  1. On 10 September 2021, the Registered Person sent the Referrer a message via WhatsApp, advising that he had drawn up the existing plans and elevations and sections to work on, and that he would send her some proposals in the next 24 hours to discuss.

 

  1. The Referrer heard nothing further from the Registered Person by the agreed deadline, nor did she receive the drawings as agreed. The Referrer tried to contact the Registered Person by telephone and sent WhatsApp messages chasing for an update on 16, 17 and 24 September 2021 but received no response from the Registered Person.

 

  1. On 30 September 2021, the Referrer sent the Registered Person a message requesting that he refund her deposit within a week as he was in breach of contract and unable to complete the project.

 

  1. The Registered Person did not respond to the message but, on 1 October 2021, he emailed the Referrer requesting that she pay him for a planning application he had submitted on her behalf. She had not seen or approved any drawings and stated that he should not have submitted any planning application without her input. The Referrer did not receive any response to this message.

 

  1. In November 2021, as the refund of the deposit was still outstanding, the Referrer submitted a claim to the Small Claims Court. In December 2021, a County Court judgment was made in favour of the Referrer. During her oral evidence, the Referrer informed the Committee that the Registered Person has since made an application for the judgment to be set aside which was granted by the court. She stated that a trial is scheduled to take place in the New Year.

 

  1. After difficulty in contacting the Registered Person, delays in producing the work, and attempts to terminate the contract, the Referrer made a complaint to the ARB on 11 February 2022.

 

Project B – Carpenter

 

  1. The Registered Person was instructed by the Referrer, Gabriella Carpenter, and her partner, to produce drawings for a single storey extension to their home (“Property B”).

 

  1. The Referrer was issued with a fee proposal on 12 July 2021. The Referrer states that although the fee proposal was sent on 12 July 2021 it is dated 5 February 2021. No further terms of engagement were provided beyond a copy of the Registered Person’s fee proposal and invoice.

 

  1. Between August and September 2021, the Registered Person began work on initial designs and sketches for Property B and was responsive to communication from the Referrer. Planning permission was obtained for the side extension on 3 December 2021.

 

  1. In February 2022, in the first week that the building work commenced, the Referrer began to have some difficulty in contacting the Registered Person and obtaining a response in relation to various issues arising.

 

  1. On 4 April 2022, the Referrer was notified by the kitchen design company that there was a discrepancy with the final drawing measurements provided by the Registered Person resulting in the cabinets created for their bespoke kitchen no longer fitting the space. The Referrer had provided the kitchen company with the drawings produced by the Registered Person. The Referrer was aware that the drawings had a note indicating that they were ‘not to scale’ but she did not recall the Registered Person ever suggesting that the measurements were not accurate.

 

  1. The Referrer tried to contact the Registered Person in the hopes of finding a solution to the problem. Having brought the issue to the Registered Person’s attention, and having received no response, throughout April 2022, the Referrer repeatedly tried to contact him via his mobile phone, calls to his office, and messages on the dedicated WhatsApp group. He did not answer or respond. When the Referrer’s partner tried calling the Registered Person from a number which was unfamiliar to him (the Registered Person), he answered the call. Upon realising who it was, the Registered Person tried to terminate the call quickly.

 

  1. A formal complaint was sent to the Registered Person by email on 12 April 2022, in which it was stated that if the Referrer did not receive a response by 15 April 2022, a complaint would be filed with the ARB and a Small Claims application would be lodged with the Court for damages. On 22 April 2022, the Referrer sent a WhatsApp message warning the Registered Person about the Small Claims action she was about to take.

 

  1. The Referrer has not heard from the Registered Person since 4 April 2022. She submitted a complaint to the ARB on 16 April 2022.

 

Project C – Eleftheriou

 

  1. The Referrer, Chris Eleftheriou, instructed the Registered Person to complete a side extension to his home (“Property C”) in November 2021. He was introduced to the Registered Person through his neighbour who was also planning an extension which the Registered Person was designing. The Registered Person offered his services to the Referrer, suggesting that he could submit both applications to the Local Authority at the same time to expedite the process.

 

  1. The Referrer was issued with a fee proposal on 26 November 2021. No further terms of engagement were sent to him.

 

  1. The Registered Person advised that he would submit the application for the neighbour’s property in the week following 26 November 2021, and the Referrer’s application for Property C shortly afterwards (by the following month), so that the planning department would have both sets of plans for consideration at the same time. On 15 December 2021, the Registered Person advised that he was finalising the drawings and would send them over for discussion on 17 December 2021. The drawings were not sent.

 

  1. Throughout December 2021 and January 2022, the Referrer attempted to contact the Registered Person on several occasions in order to obtain an update on the planning application as he still had not received the drawings for approval.

 

  1. The planning application was delayed and not submitted until 31 January 2022, and not uploaded to the planning portal until 10 February 2022. On 11 January 2022, the Registered Person had called apologising for the “disconnect” in his communication at the end of the previous year as his son had sustained an injury to his elbow.

 

  1. After the planning application was approved on 5 April 2022, the Registered Person advised that the next stage of the project would be completed within 7 days. The work was not produced within that time and the Registered Person did not attend a scheduled meeting on 15 April 2022. The Referrer sent text messages and emails on 15, 21, 22, and 23 April 2022, to which he received no response.

 

  1. On 29 April 2022, the Registered Person sent a text message to the Referrer stating that his “pack is complete”. The Referrer received nothing further from the Registered Person and had no response to emails, messages or calls on 3, 4, 10 or 30 May 2022 or 14 June 2022. In an email dated 30 May 2022, the Referrer made a formal complaint to the Registered Person. There was no response.

 

  1. The Referrer states that the Registered Person repeatedly made false promises and gave deadlines that he did not comply with, avoided telephone calls, voicemails, messages left at his remote telephone answering service, texts, WhatsApp, and emails. He submitted a complaint to the ARB on 10 June 2022.

 

Project D – Mallia

 

  1. The Referrer, Kayleigh Mallia, instructed the Registered Person in February 2021 to create plans for a single storey extension to her property (“Property D”). A fee proposal was provided on 22 February 2021, but she did not receive any terms of engagement. It is the Referrer’s evidence that the work on Property D was set back several times due to poor communication and delays on the part of the Registered Person.

 

  1. The Referrer states that plans for the extension were slow, but drawings were submitted to the Local Authority to seek consent for works under permitted development rights on 1 May 2021. The initial application was closed as the fee had not been paid due to an incorrect email address having been detailed on the application. The application was re-submitted on 10 May 2021.

 

  1. The proposal was rejected in July 2021. From this time, the Registered Person was difficult to contact and there was only ad hoc communication with him.

 

  1. When contact was established with the Registered Person, the Referrer requested that they proceed and submit an amended planning application. The fee was paid, and the application was submitted on 4 October 2021. Following this, the Registered Person was difficult to contact once again.

 

  1. The Referrer believed that her application was still in progress until, in November 2021, she received a refund from the Local Authority. There was no other communication as to why the refund had been issued, and little to no communication from the Registered Person, despite repeatedly trying to obtain an explanation from him.

 

  1. Due to the lack of communication or information from the Registered Person, the Referrer contacted the Local Authority directly. They advised that the application had been cancelled as they had requested more information from the Registered Person, who had not replied.

 

  1. On 9 February 2022, the Referrer sent a complaint to the Registered Person, advising him of what the Local Authority had said and requesting a refund. There was no response to that complaint and further attempts to contact the Registered Person went unanswered.

 

  1. Knowing that it would be unlikely she would receive a refund, and having a tight budget for the build, the Referrer agreed to continue to work with the Registered Person after a face-to-face meeting ‘to clear the air’. A fresh application for planning permission was submitted in March 2022. The Referrer found that, again, more information was needed by the Local Authority for the application to be valid, having again contacted the Local Authority directly because of a lack of communication/information from the Registered Person. The deadline to provide the additional information was 28 March 2022. The Registered Person did submit additional information, however not all that was required, and the deadline was moved to 28 April 2022.

 

  1. As the deadline approached, the Registered Person was again difficult to contact and would not return calls or messages. As the deadline passed, the Referrer heard nothing from the Registered Person.

 

  1. The Referrer and her husband sent the Registered Person a formal complaint by email on 30 April 2022. They terminated his services and requested a refund. They did not receive a response.

 

  1. The Referrers later discovered that the Registered Person submitted what was required for the Local Authority on 3 May 2022, after the deadline, which was accepted by the Local Authority and planning permission was granted.

 

  1. The Referrer complained to the ARB about the Registered Person on 11 September 2022.

 

Project E – Perkins

 

  1. The Referrer, Michael Perkins, contacted the Registered Person to complete drawings for a side extension on his property (“Property E”). A fee proposal was provided on 31 March 2021, but he did not receive any terms of engagement. Following a discussion as to the payment structure, an updated fee proposal was issued on 4 June 2021. The Referrer did not receive any further terms of engagement.

 

  1. The Referrer stated that the Registered Person took much longer than expected to deliver the packages of drawings for planning permission, taking almost a year to provide all that was required. He stated that there were no timescales or deadlines noted in the fee proposal.

 

  1. The original application was sent to the Local Authority on 28 July 2021 but detailed an address for the plans which was unrelated to Property E. It was also missing the block plan for the site. The Referrer sent chasing emails to the Registered Person on 18 and 26 August 2021 as nothing was showing on the Local Authority website with regards to the application. The Registered Person did not provide an update the following day as promised, nor did he answer subsequent calls or reply to messages. The application was rejected.

 

  1. The Registered Person submitted a renewed pack on 1 December 2021. This was approved on 27 January 2022 and the Referrer confirmed that he was happy to move forward to the next stage of the project.

 

  1. During the period March to May 2022 the Structural Engineer was working on the drawings which were provided in the latter part of May 2022. It was the Referrer’s expectation that once the drawings were complete, the Registered Person would review and approve the calculations and start the tender process; he assumed the pack would be ready to send to builders promptly after receiving the drawings from the structural engineer on 20 May 2022. This did not happen.

 

  1. It is the evidence of the Referrer that there were periods when there was little or no communication from the Registered Person, which could be for months at a time. He did not receive any communication in the latter part of May 2022, and, between 1- 27 June 2022, the Referrer tried to call the Registered Person 11 times but did not receive a reply.

 

  1. On 8 June 2022, the Referrer emailed the Registered Person with a formal complaint, which was not acknowledged or responded to. In this email, the Referrer also asked the Architect to return “as existing” drawings of the Referrer’s property which the Referrer had lent him at the start of the project. The Referrer states that, to date, he has yet to receive these drawings. Attempts to contact him following this complaint were ignored.

 

  1. In order to get the final set of drawings, the Referrer says that he had to resort to knocking on the Registered Person’s door every day for two weeks to ask for them as he would not answer calls, emails, or messages.

 

  1. The Referrer considered raising a formal complaint with the Registered Person but states there was no mechanism for doing so. The only phone number and email he had went directly to the Registered Person, or to a call centre who passed on messages. The Registered Person’s registered office is a post box with no-one on site and no evidence of his business being there.

 

  1. The Referrer made a formal complaint to the ARB on 16 October 2022.

 

Registrar Referral

 

  1. The ARB wrote to the Registered Person on 19 July 2022 inviting a response, which he provided on 2 August 2022.

 

  1. Initial investigations into these complaints gave rise to additional potential failings being identified by the ARB. An allegation that the Registered Person failed to correspond in a manner befitting a regulated professional arose as a result of a potential client raising concerns with the Registered Person that she had seen a post on social media site, warning against engaging his services. The Registered Person responded by sharing personal information about the member of the public who had posted the warning.

 

  1. Further issues were identified including a failure on the part of the Registered Person to ensure that he had adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”) and/or a failure to provide evidence of the same. The ARB requested evidence of his insurance on 19 July 2022, 3 August 2022, and 8 August 2022. No evidence was provided, giving rise to an additional allegation that the Registered Person failed to co‐operate with regulatory requirements and investigations.

 

  1. Following a Companies House search, the ARB identified a failure by the Registered Person to notify the ARB, in accordance with Standard 9.2, that companies that he was a Director of had been wound up.

 

  1. The ARB invited the Registered Person’s comments on 11 August 2022. He did not respond.

 

 

Applications

Application to Amend

 

  1. At the outset of the hearing the Presenting Officer, in response to a query from the Committee, made an application to amend Particular 7 by inserting the following words to Limb 2 “by 10 August 2022 as requested by the ARB” and by changing “has” to “had”. The Registered Person did not raise any objection.

 

  1. The Committee granted the application to amend. The Committee was satisfied that the amendment more accurately reflected the ARB’s case, and that no injustice would be caused to the Registered Person.

 

Partially Private Hearing

 

  1. The Registered Person made an application for part of the hearing to be conducted in private. The Presenting Officer raised no objection.

 

58. The Committee acceded to the Registered Person’s request as it related to a deeply personal matter. The Committee was satisfied that conducting part of the hearing in private would enable the Registered Person to give his best evidence and was therefore in the interests of justice. The Committee determined that the circumstances surrounding this matter would be referred to as ‘the incident’ when in public session.

 

Admission of Additional Evidence

 

  1. The Registered Person made an application for additional photographs to be admitted in evidence. The photographs depicted the exterior and interior of the basement at Property A. The Registered Person submitted that the photographs were relevant to the credibility of Ms Ibitoye as contrary to her oral evidence they showed that there was damp in the basement of Property A. He stated that he ‘found’ the photographs “yesterday after the hearing” amongst 1000’s of photographs in an old phone.

 

  1. The Presenting Officer opposed the application primarily on the grounds of relevance. He reminded the Committee that the Registered Person had not challenged the accuracy of her oral evidence; at best there was a difference of opinion. He submitted that the damp issue is not relevant to the Allegation.

 

  1. The Committee determined that the photographs should be admitted solely on the basis that they provided helpful background information; they assisted the Committee in understanding the oral description of the basement. The photographs were not admitted for the purpose of permitting the Registered Person to undermine the evidence of Ms Ibitoye. Nor were they admitted on the grounds that they were directly relevant to the Allegation.

 

Admissions

 

  1. At the outset of the hearing the Registered Person admitted Limb 2 of Particular 7. The Committee announced that Particular 7 (Limb 2) had been found proved by reason of that admission. The other factual particulars were denied in their entirety.

 

  1. The Registered Person made several concessions during his oral evidence. At the conclusion of the oral evidence, the Registered Person was invited, by the Committee, to indicate if there were any further admissions that he wanted to make. The Registered Person admitted Particulars 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 3(a), 3(b)(i), 3(c), 4(a), 5(a), 5(c), 8 and 9. The Committee announced that these factual particulars were found proved by reason of those admissions. The remaining factual particulars were denied.

 

  1. During closing submissions the Registered Person made a further admission. He admitted Particular 3(b)(ii). The Committee was satisfied that this was an unequivocal admission and announced that Particular 3(b)(ii) had been found proved.

 

Evidence

 

  1. The Committee took into account the documentary evidence contained within the hearing bundle which included:

i.  Report to ARB prepared by Kingsley Napley

ii. Witness Statements of the Referrers

iii. Various email correspondence

iv. Registered Person’s representations

v. Registered Person’s Further Representations

 

  1. The Committee heard oral evidence from the ARB’s witnesses – the Referrers. The Committee also heard oral evidence from the Registered Person. The Registered Person called two witnesses to give character evidence – Mr Tom Jivandi and Mr Samson Gheorghe.

 

Decision on Facts

The Committee’s Approach

 

  1. The Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) advised the Committee that, in relation to the factual particulars that remained in dispute, the burden of proof lies with the ARB and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The Registered Person did not have to prove or disprove anything. The LQC advised that where the allegation refers to a ‘failure’ the ARB must first prove that the Registered Person had a duty to do something, and secondly, that it was not done. If the Committee determines that there was a duty to do something, which was not done, it should go on to consider if there is any evidence that this was for good reason.

 

  1. The Committee was not required to address every point that was made; only such matters as enabled it to conclude whether the facts under consideration had been proved.

 

 

Findings of Fact

Particular 1(c) – Found Proved (both Limbs)

Project A  – “the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.”

 

  1. Standard 10.2 of The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice (“the Code”) states that complaints should be handled courteously and promptly at every stage and as far as practicable in accordance with the following timescales:

                 a) an acknowledgement within 10 working days from the receipt of a complaint; and

                 b) a response addressing the issues raised in the initial letter of complaint within 30 working days from its receipt.

 

  1. On 17 September 2021, the Referrer sent a WhatsApp message to the Registered Person. In that message, she referred to their verbal agreement, and poor communication experienced to date. She suggested that if the Registered Person was unable to complete the drawings, within the agreed timescale, he should let her know “so we can reconsider the job and sort out a refund”. The Committee noted that the Referrer was expressing dissatisfaction in that WhatsApp message but acknowledged that the Registered Person may not have interpreted it as a complaint. However, the Referrer sent a further WhatsApp message on 24 September 2021 in which she stated, “You have failed to respond to any of my messages.”  The Referrer requested a refund of her deposit. The tone and content of that message put it beyond doubt that this was a complaint. On 30 September 2021, the Referrer sent the Registered Person a further message. She stated that he had breached the terms of their contract and asked for her deposit to be refunded within one week. There was no response from the Registered Person in respect of any of the messages.

 

  1. The Registered Person made it clear to the Committee, during his oral evidence, that he took umbrage at the fact that the Referrer had posted a photograph of him on a neighbourhood watch website. The social media post named the Registered Person and Tudor Agencies. The opening sentence of the post stated, “…it would weigh too heavily on my conscience if anyone else got scammed.” The Registered Person also stated during his oral evidence that he did not think the Referrer was ever “serious” about undertaking work to Property A as she did not pay for the planning application. He acknowledged that he was not an ‘easy person to get hold of’ but stated that he informs all his clients that he is a ‘one man band.” The Registered Person answered questions from the Committee about the incident which he stated centred on a period from the beginning of the Summer 2021 until Summer 2022.

 

  1. The Committee noted that the Referrer expected to be provided with the drawings before the plans were submitted to the Local Authority for planning permission. The Committee accepted the Referrer’s evidence. Irrespective of the merits of the Referrer’s complaint and whether the drawings were provided in a Dropbox, the Registered Person had a duty to respond to her complaint in accordance with Standard 10.2 of the Code. The Registered Person did not meet the 10-day timescale for acknowledgment of receipt of complaint, nor the 30-day requirement for response to the issues raised in the letter of complaint.

 

  1. No good reason for failing to respond to the Referrer’s complaint or addressing the dispute was provided. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee noted that the Registered Person focussed much of his attention on the Referrer’s social media post. As the social media post was not uploaded until February 2022, it provides no answer to the allegation that the Registered Person failed to deal with the dispute and/or complaint appropriately given that the complaint was raised in September 2021. Furthermore, to the extent that the Registered Person relied on ‘the incident’ the Committee was not persuaded that this provided a good reason for not responding to the dispute and/or complaint given that he was working throughout this period and all that was required was appropriate engagement with the Referrer.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Particular 1(c) proved.

 

 

Particular 2(b) – Found Proved (both Limbs)

Project B – “the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.”

 

  1. The Committee noted that following concerns about the lack of communication throughout the duration of the project and issues with the build, the Referrer’s partner made a formal complaint to the Registered Person on 12 April 2022 via email. The message was also copied and sent via WhatsApp on 13 April 2022. The complaint stated:

 

“We are writing to complain about the service you have provided us, in the aim of coming to an amicable resolution, before pursuing other routes to solve the issues you have caused us…

 

Because we have absolutely no faith that you will respond to this message, we have had to think of alternative options to resolve this scenario. We have been advised that should we not receive a response by 5pm on Friday 15 April, we should:

 – File a complaint against you with the ARB (Architect’s Registration Board) in regards to your lack of conduct and competence

– File a court claim with the small claims court for the damages you have caused us.”

 

  1. During his oral evidence the Registered Person accepted that he did not respond to the Referrer’s complaint. He stated that his mind was focussed on producing evidence in relation to “the incident” and he was working in a reduced capacity. He also stated that the Referrer and her partner had an issue with regard to the measurement of the kitchen, which fell outside his scope of work, and that he felt that he was being used.

 

  1. Irrespective of the merits of the Referrer’s complaint and whether the kitchen company should have relied on the Registered Person’s ‘not to scale’ drawings, the Registered Person had a duty to respond to the complaint in accordance with Standard 10.2 of the Code. The Committee accepted the evidence of the Referrer. The Registered Person was aware that the Referrer and her partner had raised  a complaint, yet he made no attempt to make contact with them in order to resolve the dispute and/or complaint. The Registered Person did not meet the 10-day timescale for acknowledgment of receipt of complaint, nor the 30-day requirement for response to the issues raised in the letter of complaint.

 

  1. No good reason for failing to respond to the Referrer’s complaint or addressing the dispute was provided. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee noted that the Registered Person focussed much of his attention on why it was inappropriate for the kitchen company to rely on his drawings; in his experience kitchen companies always do their own measurements. The Committee concluded that this provides no answer to the allegation that the Registered Person failed to deal with the dispute and/or complaint. Furthermore, to the extent that the Registered Person relied on ‘the incident’ the Committee was not persuaded that this provided a good reason for not responding to the dispute and/or complaint for the same reasons as stated above.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Particular 2(b) proved.

 

Particular 4(b)(i) – Found Proved (Limb 1); Found Not Proved (Limb 2)

 

Project D – “the Registered Person failed to complete work without undue delay and/or within an agreed timescale;”

 

  1. Standard 6.2 of the Code states that an architect should carry out their professional work without undue delay and, so far as is reasonably practicable, in accordance with any time scale and cost limits agreed with the client. Standard 6.3 of the Code expects an architect to keep their client informed of the work they undertake on a client’s behalf and of any issue which may significantly affect its quality or cost.

 

  1. The Registered Person’s fee proposal was issued on 22 February 2021 and the Referrer paid the planning application fee on or around 10 May 2021. However, planning consent was not obtained until June 2022. The Committee acknowledged that some of this delay was for reasons outside of the Registered Person’s control. For example, the initial application was not validated until 16 June 2021 which appeared to be due to the Local Authority’s internal process, and on 27 July 2021, the permitted development application was refused. During August 2021, the Referrer believed that the Registered Person was “seeking support to make an appeal” but she was never informed that an appeal had ever been formally submitted. Furthermore, the Registered Person did not respond to the WhatsApp message the Referrer sent on 28 September 2021 or the email she sent on 1 October 2021.

 

  1. On 7 October 2021, the Local Authority wrote to the Registered Person requesting further information to confirm validation. He was given until 28 October 2021 to respond. The Registered Person did not respond to the Local Authority, and on 3 November 2021, the application was cancelled. On 7 March 2022, following the submission of a renewed application, the Local Authority advised the Registered Person that they could not validate the application until additional information had been provided. The Registered Person was given until 28 April 2022, but he did not respond in time.

 

  1. The Committee accepted the evidence of the Referrer with regard to the delays. Her evidence was clear and compelling. As set out in the background (see above) the Committee noted that the Referrer experienced difficulties in communication with the Registered Person throughout the life of the project, and more often than not there was no response to her attempts to contact the Registered Person by telephone, WhatsApp, and email.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated during his oral evidence that the delays were caused by a combination of factors including the COVID-19 pandemic and ‘the incident’.

 

  1. The Committee concluded that the pandemic could only account for part of the overall delay. Furthermore, to the extent that the Registered Person relied on ‘the incident’ the Committee was not persuaded that this provided a good reason for not completing the work without undue delay for the same reasons as stated above.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Limb 1 of Particular 4(b)(i) proved.

 

  1. The Referrer stated, in her witness statement, that she had discussed timescales with the Registered Person. It was her understanding that the work would be completed as quickly as possible and definitely by the end of 2021.

 

  1. The Committee accepted that the Referrer wanted the work completed as soon as possible. However, the fee proposal did not indicate any timescales or deadlines and there was no evidence that a specific timescale had been agreed between the Referrer and the Registered Person.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Limb 2 of Particular 4(b)(i) not proved.

 

Particular 4(b)(ii) – Found Proved

Project D – “the Registered Person failed to keep the client adequately informed about the work completed on her behalf;”

 

  1. The Committee took into account its findings in respect of Particular 4(b)(i).

 

  1. The Registered Person stated, during his oral evidence, that he kept the Referrer updated but accepted that there was a period when they “lost contact” due to his “personal issues” and other work.

 

  1. The Committee accepted the evidence of the Referrer with regard to her repeated attempts to contact the Registered Person and his limited engagement. The Registered Person failed to update the Referrer on the progress of their project and on issues arising with their application. Attempts by the Referrer to obtain the relevant information from the Registered Person were ignored. To the extent that the Registered Person relied on ‘the incident’ the Committee was not persuaded that this provided a good reason for not keeping the Referrer informed for the same reasons as stated above.

 

  1. For these reasons, Particular 4(b)(ii) was found proved.

 

Particular 4(c) – Found Proved (Both Limbs)

 

Project D – “the Registered Person failed to deal with a dispute and/or complaint appropriately.”

 

  1. The Referrer sent the Registered Person two separate letters of complaint. The first letter was sent by email on 9 February 2022. It stated that the Referrer and her husband had discovered that the Registered Person had failed to provide the Local Authority with information necessary for the progress of the planning application. The Referrer and her husband also set out a chronology of the various attempts they had made to contact him. Although the Registered Person suggested a “clear the air” meeting with the Referrer, and their professional relationship resumed for a period, he did not at any time directly address the complaint.

 

  1. The second complaint was made on 30 April 2022. It stated:

 

“As you failed to complete the work needed for obtaining planning permission from our local authority, you cannot justify to keep hold of 50% of the money paid to you. This has happened more than once as stated at the beginning of this email. Therefore, we are within our right to a refund of:

£1425.00 – second half of our payment which we paid to you on 16th May 2021.

I think we are being more than fair to you by asking for this to be refunded to us and we would expect this payment to be made to us no later than 16th May 2022. There will not be any other ways to rectify this and our decision to part ways with you is final.”

 

  1. The Registered Person stated, during his oral evidence, that he dealt with the dispute. He appeared to be referring to the period between the first and second complaint. He stated that he had advised the Referrer how to contact the Local Authority directly and also made reference to the Local Authority being “slow”. He suggested at one point that the only way he could have dealt with the matter better was if he had employed a secretary or additional staff.

 

  1. Irrespective of the merits of the Referrer’s complaint, the Registered Person had a duty to respond to the complaint in accordance with Standard 10.2 of the Code. The Committee accepted the evidence of the Referrer. The Registered Person was aware that the Referrer and her husband had raised a complaint, yet he made no attempt to make contact with them in order to resolve the dispute and/or complaint. The Registered Person did not meet the 10-day timescale for acknowledgment of receipt of complaint, nor the 30-day requirement for response to the issues raised in the letter of complaint. To the extent that the Registered Person relied on ‘the incident’ the Committee was not persuaded that this provided a good reason for failing to deal with the dispute and/or complaint for the same reasons as stated above.

 

  1. For these reasons, Particular 4(c) was found proved.

 

Particular 5(b)(i) – Found Proved (Limb 1); Found Not Proved (Limb 2)

Project E – “the Registered Person failed to complete work without undue delay and/or within an agreed timescales;”

 

  1. The Committee took into account the background (as set out above). The Committee accepted the evidence of the Referrer with regard to the delays. His evidence was clear, measured, and compelling. The Committee noted that the work submitted by the Registered Person was incomplete in that he omitted the block plan, which caused delay to the planning application process. The Committee took the view that this should have been identified by the Registered Person and, in any event, should have been rectified promptly once it was brought to his attention. However, the block plan was not submitted until 2 months later, and only when the Local Authority chased the Referrer directly for the missing information. Once planning permission had been obtained and the structural engineer had prepared the relevant drawings, the Registered Person failed to progress the project by beginning the tender process promptly.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated, during his oral evidence, that he made it clear that he was a “one man band” and that he was not always “readily available”. He stated that some things were inside his control, and some were outside his control. He also stated that it was not possible for him to maintain a full-time member of staff.

 

  1. The Committee did not accept that the Registered Person’s status as a sole trader provides a good reason for failing to meet his professional obligations. To the extent that the Registered Person relied on ‘the incident’ the Committee was not persuaded that this provided a good reason for not completing the work without undue delay for the same reasons as stated above.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Limb 1 of Particular 5(b)(i) proved.

 

  1. The Referrer stated, in his witness statement, that he had been informed by the Registered Person that planning permission should only take a “matter of weeks”.

 

  1. The Committee accepted that the Referrer wanted the work completed as soon as possible. However, the fee proposal did not indicate any timescales or deadlines and there was no evidence that a specific timescale had been agreed between the Referrer and the Registered Person.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Limb 2 of Particular 5(b)(i) not proved.

 

Particular 5(b)(ii) – Found Proved

 

Project E – “the Registered Person failed to keep the client adequately informed about the work completed on his behalf;”

 

  1. The Committee took into account its findings in respect of Particular 5(b)(i).

 

  1. The Registered Person stated, during his oral evidence, that he kept the Referrer updated as far as he was able to do so.

 

  1. The Committee accepted the evidence of the Referrer with regard to his repeated attempts to contact the Registered Person and his limited engagement. The Registered Person failed to update the Referrer on the progress of their project and on issues arising with their application. Attempts by the Referrer to obtain the relevant information from the Registered Person were ignored. To the extent that the Registered Person relied on ‘the incident’ the Committee was not persuaded that this provided a good reason for not keeping the Referrer informed for the same reasons as stated above.

 

  1. For these reasons, Particular 5(b)(ii) was found proved.

 

Particular 5(d) – Found Proved (Both Limbs)

 

Project E – “the Registered Person failed to adequately and/or appropriately deal with a complaint, contrary to Standard 10 of the Code.”

 

  1. On 8 June 2022, the Referrer emailed the Registered Person, with a formal complaint. He stated:

 

“I cannot get you on the phone and you are not answering emails. Please accept this email as a formal complaint [emphasis in original].

 

You still have not delivered the regs pack in order for me to go ahead with pricing etc despite missed promise dates. I hope you will deal with this complaint in line with the ARB guidelines and that we can find a way to resolve the issues outstanding.

 

These include:

Review of SE drawings

Completion of building regs pack to a standard that can be used to price and build against.

Provision of hard copies of the pack for onward use by builders to build and price against. Return of original hard copies of “as is” drawings lent to you over a year ago.

 

Please provide a reasonable timeline for completion of these activities by close of business Friday 10th June.

 

If this does not happen then I will have to proceed to take further action through the recommended complaints process on the ARB website.”

 

  1. As the Referrer had not received a response to his formal complaint by 9 June 2022, he sent a chaser email. The Referrer continued to chase the Registered Person over the following days via telephone but was not able to get through.

 

  1. The Registered Person made it clear to the Committee, during his oral evidence, that he took umbrage to the fact that the Referrer had attended the home address of his parents. Irrespective of the merits of the Referrer’s complaint, the Registered Person had a duty to respond to his complaint in accordance with Standard 10.2 of the Code. The Registered Person did not meet the 10-day timescale for acknowledgment of receipt of complaint, nor the 30-day requirement for response to the issues raised in the letter of complaint.

 

  1. No good reason for failing to respond to the Referrer’s complaint or addressing the dispute was provided. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee noted that the Registered Person focussed much of his attention on the Referrer’s response to his non-communication rather than his own failings. Furthermore, to the extent that the Registered Person relied on ‘the incident’ the Committee was not persuaded that this provided a good reason for not responding to the dispute and/or complaint for the same reasons as stated above.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Particular 1(c) proved.

 

Particular 6 – Found Proved

Register Referral – “The Registered Person failed to correspond in a manner befitting a regulated professional;”

 

  1. Standard 1.1 of the Code states that architects are expected to act with integrity and at all times and avoid any actions or situations which are inconsistent with their professional obligations. Standard 4.3 of the Code requires architects to ensure that they take full account of data protection legislation, and that clients’ confidential information is safeguarded.

 

  1. On 19 July 2022, the ARB wrote to the Registered Person inviting him to respond to the allegations. The Registered Person’s response included emails between himself and a potential client who had expressed concern about the social media post from Ms Ibitoye. The Registered Person also shared personal information about Ms Ibitoye including the door number of her property, his court action against her, her profession, and her family circumstances. In addition, the Registered Person made derogatory personal comments about her.

 

  1. The Registered Person was given the opportunity, during his oral evidence, to disavow his actions and recant the comments he had made. However, he declined to do so. He stated he was upset and frustrated by Ms Ibitoye’s actions in uploading the social media post about him and indicated that he thought that his response was entirely justified.

 

  1. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s emails containing identifying information about a client demonstrated a clear breach of Standard 1 and Standard 4.3 of the Code. Members of the public providing an architect with personal information, would have a reasonable expectation that they could trust that person to keep their information confidential, especially as the architect would, necessarily, have access to their home. Furthermore, the Committee concluded that disclosing personal information about Ms Ibitoye,  her property and her professional body was inappropriate. In addition, the language used by the Registered Person was deeply personal, offensive, and unprofessional. The Registered Person’s correspondence demonstrated a lack of respect for his clients and their privacy.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Particular 6 proved.

 

Particular 7 – Found Not Proved (Limb 1)

 

“Contrary to Standard 8.4, the Registered Person failed to ensure he has adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance;”

 

  1. Standard 8 of the Code states that an architect is expected to have PII cover. Although the Registered Person admitted that he did not provide the ARB with evidence that he had PII cover in place by 10 August 2022 as requested, he did provide evidence of his PII cover at the outset of the hearing.

 

  1. The documentary evidence of PII cover provided by the Registered Person was not presented in a clear format. However, it was sufficient to undermine the allegation and as a consequence, the Committee determined that the ARB had not proved its case in respect of Limb 1 of Particular 7.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee found Limb 1 of Particular 7 not proved.

 

Decision on Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC)

 

The Committee’s Approach

  1. The LQC advised that whether the conduct alleged amounts to UPC is a matter for the Committee’s independent judgment and there is no burden or standard of proof.

 

  1. UPC is defined as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered person. In reaching its findings on UPC, the Committee recognised that not every shortcoming on the part of an Architect, nor failure to comply with the provisions of the Code, will necessarily give rise to disciplinary proceedings or a finding of UPC. Architects are expected to be guided by the spirit of the Code as well as its express terms.

 

  1. In deciding whether the facts found proved amount to UPC the Committee had regard to Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). It bore in mind in reaching its decision that for a finding of UPC to be made, “a degree of moral blameworthiness on the part of the registrant likely to convey a degree of opprobrium to the ordinary intelligent citizen” was required. The Committee also took into account the observation made by Mr Justice Kerr in Shaw v The General Osteopathic Council [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin) that although the conduct in question must be sufficiently serious, it does not need to be of such gravity that imposing an admonishment would be too lenient.

 

Findings of UPC

 

  1. The Committee found at the fact-finding stage that the Registered Person: (i) failed to provide each of the Referrers with adequate terms of engagement which met the expectations set out in Standard 4.4 of the Code; (ii) failed to provide each of the Referrers with timely responses which led to them having to repeatedly chase for updates; (iii) failed to carry out work in respect of three of the projects without undue delay; (iv) failed to provide timely responses to each of the Referrers complaints; and (v) failed to engage appropriately with his regulator including behaviour unbefitting of a regulated professional.

 

  1. The Committee concluded that the factual findings and the corresponding breaches of the Code are sufficiently serious to adversely impact both on the reputation of the Registered Person and the profession generally.

 

  1. The Committee took into account the wider public interest, which includes the maintenance of public trust and confidence and the declaring and upholding of professional standards. The Committee concluded that if there was no finding of UPC it would undermine rather than uphold public trust and confidence in the professional standards of architects.

 

  1. In all the circumstances and for the reasons set out below, the Committee finds that the Registered Person’s conduct cumulatively amounts to UPC in respect of the undue delay and both individually and cumulatively amounts to UPC in respect of the other failings.

 

Terms of Engagement

 

  1. The Registered Person had a duty to be aware of and to follow the terms of the Code. Standard 4.4 sets out clearly what the terms of engagement are expected to include. Compliance with these expectations protect the client, the architect, and the public. It is not aspirational; nor is it onerous or difficult to achieve. It is fundamental to professional work as a registered architect that adequate terms and conditions, covering the full scope of the work to be undertaken are communicated clearly to the client, in writing, at the outset of a project. If during the project, there are significant changes to the scope of work this should also be communicated clearly and agreed with the client in writing. A failure to do so, has the potential to cause delays, undue stress and anxiety, and financial loss. In the absence of a good reason, the failure to provide adequate terms of engagement is serious.

 

  1. Although the Registered Person provided the Referrers with a fee proposal, he did not provide them with adequate terms of engagement which sufficiently described the relevant contracting parties including their respective responsibilities and the scope of the work, in that, no information with regard to the project budget and overall timescales was provided. The fee proposal did not contain any of the other requirements set out in Standard 4.4. For example, a statement that he had adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by the ARB, the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes, the existence of the Registered Person’s complaints-handling procedure and clear confirmation that the Registered Person is registered with the ARB and subject to the Code. The Committee noted that the Registered Person had taken steps to instruct a human resource professional to re-draft his terms and conditions but was dismayed that that also does not fully comply with Standard 4.4.

 

  1. The Registered Person’s failure to provide adequate terms is serious because it had the potential to lead to misunderstanding and confusion about important matters. Furthermore, in each case, the insufficient terms had an impact on the Referrers, in that, they had no access to a complaint handling procedure.

 

Lack of Communication

 

  1. In accordance with Standard 6.3 of the Code, an architect has a professional duty to keep their client informed of the work they undertake on a client’s behalf and of any issue which may significantly affect its quality or cost.

 

  1. The Registered Person failed to provide timely responses to each of the Referrers when they attempted to make contact with him, and they were frequently in a position where they had to repeatedly chase him for updates. On many occasions the Registered Person did not respond at all. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s status as a sole trader provides no justification for the communication failures. The Registered Person had a professional obligation to respond to his clients in a timely manner, and his failure to do so was serious as each Referrer was left in a position where they did not know when they would receive the design drawings or planning approval. Inevitably, this had an impact on their ability to progress the works.

 

Undue Delay

 

  1. Standard 6.2 of the Code states that an Architect should carry out their professional work without undue delay.

 

  1. The Registered Person repeatedly failed to adhere to deadlines without reasonable cause or explanation. This affected Projects C, D and E. The Referrers were left in an uncertain position, and this caused delay to building works. In the case of some of the Referrers, alternative architects were instructed and fees which had been paid to the Registered Person were forfeited. The Committee acknowledged that reasonably competent architects may, on occasion, be responsible for undue delays and that this may not necessarily demonstrate a serious and significant departure from Standard 6.2. It was for this reason that the Committee concluded that it was the cumulative effect of the Registered Person’s failures which justified a finding that his acts and omissions fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent architect.

 

Responses to Complaints

 

  1. Standard 10.2 requires complaints to be handled courteously and promptly at every stage, and as far as practicable in accordance with specified time scales.

 

  1. The Registered Person breached Standard 10.2 and, in so doing, his acts and omissions fell far short of the responsibilities of a registered Architect. Irrespective of the merits of their complaints, the Referrers were entitled to expect that the Registered Person would respond to their complaints and concerns professionally. A client should have confidence that a registered architect will address issues in a timely fashion and within the expected timeframes set out in the Code. The failure to respond to the Referrer’s complaints timeously left them with no certainty as to whether the complaint was being dealt with.

 

Failure to Engage Appropriately with the Regulator

 

  1. The regulatory system is reliant on registered professionals properly responding to concerns that have been raised and assisting the regulator with its enquiries. A failure to do so undermines the very purpose of regulation and the ARB’s ability to protect the public and the reputation of the profession.

 

  1. When invited to respond to the allegations relating to Project A, rather than address the complaint in a professional manner, the Registered Person chose to forward to the ARB disparaging remarks about Ms Ibitoye which he had sent to another client. He also failed to provide evidence that he had appropriate PII cover in a timely fashion and did not notify the ARB that a company or companies he was a director of had been wound up. Each of these failings were serious. They amounted to a significant departure from the high standards of conduct and behaviour expected of registered architects at all times. The failings cannot properly be described as one-off instances as they were repeated or persisted for a significant period of time and demonstrate a complete disregard for the duties and obligations expected of members. The Registered Person was not able to provide a credible explanation for these failings. Furthermore, these failings have the potential to seriously undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

 

Decision on Sanction

The Registered Person’s Evidence

  1. The Registered Person chose to give evidence at the sanction stage. He apologised for “having [‘the Committee’] here”. He stated that responding to clients is key and informed the Committee that he is considering taking various steps in the future including reinstating a phone-answering service and using Artificial Intelligence (AI). He also informed the Committee that he plans to ensure that his terms and conditions are reviewed and re-written to ensure that they are more robust.

 

  1. When question by the Presenting Officer, the Registered Person stated that he is actively looking for an Office Manager and two Project Managers to help him to provide a full design service.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated that removal from the Register would have a devasting impact on his practice and his family as he is the “sole breadwinner.”

 

  1. In response to questions from the Committee, the Registered Person stated that he continues to run CEO and Tudor Agencies. He stated that CEO is for clients with a budget in excess of 250K and Tudor Agencies is for those with smaller projects and budgets below that financial threshold. He informed the Committee that he currently has 4-5 CEO clients and 3-4 Tudor Agencies’ clients. He stated that, if given time to pay, he would be in a position to pay a financial penalty.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated that he had made the HR consultant, who he had instructed to revise his terms and conditions, aware of the Code and his concern about “social media smearing”. He believed that the revised terms and conditions met “most aspects” of the requirements but he will review them and provide the amended version to the ARB for transparency. He stated that he will ensure that the terms and conditions are on his new website and has teamed up with a solicitor who will go through the documents with the client in their office. He informed the Committee that he will now prioritise “quality over quantity” and therefore will take on fewer clients instead of trying to help all clients. He stated that he now informs clients that he will not be available to take calls in the evenings and weekends; they should send him an email instead and he will respond by email. He indicated that he no longer makes himself available “24/7” and suggested that being “overly friendly” with people had been to his detriment. He stated that the Committee’s finding of UPC should be seen within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the fuel crisis and “the incident”. He also stated that the economic climate has changed, he has streamlined his business and is currently looking for new office space. He suggested that he will only be able to employ an office manager to assist him on a “share of profits” basis as he cannot afford to provide a salary and the Project Manager will be instructed on a consultancy basis.

 

  1. The Registered Person apologised for his “erratic response” to the ARB. He stated that he was “very upset” by Ms Ibitoye’s social media post and that his family “gets phone calls about that post”. He acknowledged that he had caused upset to his clients and stated that he intends to make amends to Ms Malllia and Mr Eleftheriou. He stated that he never wants to be in this position again and recognises that “a lot is [his] own doing.”

 

The Committee’s Approach

 

  1. The Committee took into account its previous findings and the submissions made by the Presenter and the Registered Person. The Presenter did not make a “bid” for any particular sanction and acknowledged that there is no requirement to impose a sanction in every case. The Registered Person reiterated his status as the “sole breadwinner” and stressed the importance to him of not being removed from the Register.

 

  1. The Committee took into account the Sanctions Guidance (SG). The Committee was mindful that the purpose of any sanction is not to punish the Registered Person but to protect the public and the wider public interest. The public interest includes upholding public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and competence.

 

  1. The Committee applied the principle of proportionality by taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, weighing the Registered Person’s interests with the public interest, and considering the available sanctions in ascending order of severity.

 

Decision

  1. The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person experienced difficult personal circumstances due to “the incident”. However, as stated above, the Committee was not persuaded that this provided sufficient reason, in itself, for not responding to the disputes and/or complaints given that he was working throughout this period and all that was required was appropriate engagement with the Referrers. In reaching this conclusion the Committee noted that Mr Gheorge stated, during his oral evidence, that he had no difficulty in contacting the Registered Person during the relevant period. The inconsistency was not explained. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that “the incident” although distressing and difficult did not amount to mitigating circumstances in the context of this case.

 

  1. The Committee noted that the Registered Person had expressed remorse which it accepted was genuine. However, these expressions of remorse appeared to be limited to Ms Mallia and Mr Eleftheriou. The Committee was left with the impression that the Registered Person believed and continues to believe that his acts and omissions in respect of the other Referrers were justified. The Committee recognised that the Registered Person was entitled to hold that view, but it concluded that a qualified expression of remorse could not, in the circumstances of this case, properly be described as a mitigating factor.

 

  1. The Committee also noted that the Registered Person had taken steps in advance of this hearing to revise his terms and conditions. Although the Registered Person stated that he made the HR consultant aware of the Code this seems unlikely given that his current terms and conditions in respect of CEO do not comply with Standard 4.4 of the Code. In any event, the Committee concluded that whatever steps he did take were insufficient. In reaching this conclusion the Committee was mindful that the obligations are not onerous or difficult to achieve. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that the Registered Persons attempts to address the shortcomings in his written terms and conditions did not amount to a mitigating factor.

 

  1. In light of the above, in determining what sanction, if any, to impose the Committee identified the Registered Person’s good character as the only mitigating factor. The Committee noted that Mr Jivadi and Mr Gheorge spoke positively about the Registered Person’s character and client care.

 

  1. The Committee noted that the Registered Person’s inadequate terms and conditions had the potential to cause delay, undue stress and anxiety, and financial loss and deprived the Referrers of access to a complaint handling procedure. His lack of communication also exposed Referrers to an unwarranted risk of harm, in that, it caused uncertainty and had an impact on their ability to progress their project. The Registered Person also failed to respond appropriately to the ARB in response to the complaints that had been raised. These acts and omissions were repeated and formed a pattern of behaviour which persisted for a significant period of time.

 

  1. The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person had demonstrated some insight which appeared to develop during these proceedings. However, the Committee was not persuaded that the Registered Person had acquired sufficient meaningful insight to the extent that the failures identified in this case were unlikely to re-occur. In reaching this conclusion the Committee took into account the observations made at paragraphs 149-151 above. The Committee also noted that the Registered Person appeared to be unable to demonstrate that he had learned from his past mistakes in order to re-assure the Committee that his failings would not be repeated. For example, the Registered Person tended to focus on the behaviour of others rather than on his own behaviour.

 

  1. In light of the above, the Committee identified the following as aggravating factors:

             i. Substantial risk of harm to clients;

             ii. A pattern of poor conduct;

             iii. An inability to acknowledge failings;

             iv. Failure to take appropriate remedial steps;

              v. A lack of sufficient insight;

             vi. Conduct or actions that were repeated.

 

  1. The Committee considered the available options in ascending order.

 

No Sanction

 

  1. The Committee first considered whether to conclude the case by taking no action on the Registered Person’s registration. In doing so, the Committee considered paragraph 6.1.2 of the SG which states:

 

“In rare cases the PCC may conclude, having had regard to all the circumstances, that the level of seriousness of the architect’s conduct or incompetence is so low that it would be unfair or disproportionate to impose a sanction. Where the PCC has determined a sanction is not required, it is particularly important that it is clear in its written reasons as to the exceptional circumstances that justified imposing no sanction.”

 

  1. Exceptional circumstances are unusual, special, or uncommon. The Committee determined that neither the background to this case nor the specific circumstances that arose, could be properly characterised as exceptional. Furthermore, the Committee concluded that the finding of UPC alone would not be sufficient, proportionate, or in the public interest.  In reaching this conclusion the Committee was mindful that the Registered Person’s failings diminish both his reputation and that of the profession generally. The Committee therefore concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct was sufficiently serious for it to require the imposition of a sanction.

 

Reprimand

 

  1. The Committee considered whether to impose a Reprimand. The Committee took into account the non-exhaustive factors as set out in paragraph 6.2.2 of the SG which indicate when a Reprimand may be the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

 

  1. The Committee noted that actual harm and the risk of harm was caused by the Registered Persons acts and omissions. In the absence of sufficient insight and remediation, the Committee was unable to exclude the possibility of harm to the wider public. The Registered Person demonstrated poor judgment for a significant period of time. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that rather than uphold the Committee’s regulatory duty to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession, and uphold proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession, a Reprimand would undermine these objectives.

 

  1. Therefore, the Committee concluded that a Reprimand would be neither appropriate nor proportionate.

 

Penalty Order

 

  1. The Committee considered whether the imposition of a Penalty Order would effectively reinforce the importance of complying with the Code and the high standards of conduct expected of architects. The Committee concluded it would not. In the circumstances of this case, the Committee concluded that a financial penalty would add nothing of materiality to the significance of public censure in the form of a Reprimand.

 

  1. The Committee concluded that a Penalty Order would be insufficient to protect the public and meet the wider public interest given the nature and gravity of the Registered Person’s conduct and behaviour.

Suspension Order

 

  1. The Committee next considered a Suspension Order. A Suspension Order would re-affirm to the Registered Person, the profession, and the public the standards expected of a registered architect. The Committee noted that a Suspension Order would prevent the Registered Person from using the title of ‘Architect’ during the suspension period, which would therefore provide a degree of protection to the public.

 

  1. The Committee took into account the factors set out in paragraph 6.4.3 of the SG which indicate that a suspension order may be the appropriate and proportionate sanction. However, the Registered Person has demonstrated only limited insight into his conduct and has not taken full advantage of the opportunity to persuade the Committee that meaningful lessons have been learned. Furthermore, although the Registered Person’s failings are capable of being rectified, there is only limited evidence that the Registered Person is willing or able to resolve the attitudinal failures which underly his repeated failure to adhere to the standards expected of him as an architect.

 

  1. The Registered Person’s conduct involved a reckless disregard for his professional obligations as an architect. The Committee concluded that such behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as an architect.

 

  1. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that a Suspension Order would not be sufficient to protect clients, uphold standards of conduct and behaviour and maintain public trust in the profession.

 

Erasure

 

  1. The Committee, having determined that a Suspension Order does not meet the wider public interest, determined that the Registered Person’s name should be erased from the Register. Erasure is a sanction of last resort and should be reserved for those categories of cases where there is no other means of protecting the public and the wider public interest. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s case falls into this category because of the nature and gravity of his conduct, his persistent lack of insight and the ongoing risk of repetition. The Committee was also satisfied that any lesser sanction would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession.

 

  1. In reaching this conclusion the Committee balanced the wider public interest against the Registered Person’s interests including the consequential personal and professional impact erasure may have upon him. However, the Committee concluded that these considerations were significantly outweighed by its duty to give priority to the wider public interest.

 

  1. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as an architect and that any sanction short of erasure would undermine rather than promote and maintain proper standards of conduct and maintain public confidence in the profession.

 

  1. The Committee determined that the appropriate and proportionate order is erasure.

 

  1. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person should not be permitted to apply to rejoin the Register for a period of 2 years. The Committee took the view that this period will provide the Registered Person with the opportunity to reflect on this determination, and the standards expected of an architect in order to comply with the Code in future.

 

  1. That concludes this determination.