Mr Ocan Bob Mabelle

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

OCAN BOB MABELLE (083252I)

_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Chair)
Robert Dearman (Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (Lay Member)
_______________

 

Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Ocan Mabelle (“the Registered Person”)

A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The order is a £2,000 penalty order.

In respect of the charge against Ocan Mabelle (083252I) (“the Registered Person”):

 

The Registered Person:

i. accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against him in the terms set out below; and

ii. confirms that he has been offered the opportunity to appear before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee to present his case, but has foregone his right to do so; and

iii. confirms that he waives the time requirement under Rule 38 of the Investigations and Professional Conduct Committee Rules 2022 for a Consent Order to be served not less than 42 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the Charge.

The Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against the Registered Person in the terms set out below.

 

The Allegation:

1. An allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct has been brought by the ARB against the Registered Person. The particulars of the allegation that are agreed between the parties are as follows:

 

1. In respect of Project A:

a. The Registered Person failed to act without undue delay, contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code;

b. The Registered Person failed to keep his client adequately informed of the progress of the project, contrary to Standard 6.3 of the Architects Code.

2. In respect of Project B:

a. The Registered Person failed to act competently and/or with skill and care in that he:

i. did not maintain and/or apply adequate knowledge of local planning requirements; and/or
ii. did not address the reasons for refusal of the original planning application in revised drawings.

b. The Registered Person failed to act without undue delay, contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code;

c. The Registered Person failed to keep his client adequately informed of the progress of the project, contrary to Standard 6.3 of the Architects Code;

d. The Registered Person failed to provide adequate technical and administrative resources in relation to the work on the Referrer’s project.

Statement of agreed facts:

2. The Registered Person is a registered architect at Globproject Limited in London.

3. The case follows two independent complaints to the ARB by Genevieve Musey (“Referrer 1”) and Ohi Ladi Bare (“Referrer 2”).

 

Project A

4. Referrer 1 engaged the Registered Person in January 2023 to assist with the preparation of architectural plans and obtaining a building permit for a loft conversion at her residential property.

5. In March 2023, the Registered Person issued Referrer 1 with an invoice for £1,000 for design, consultation and application costs with the local council which was paid by Referrer 1 on 25 March 2023.

6. The Registered Person assured Referrer 1 that he would make a pre-planning application on 27 March 2023.

i. Two weeks after 27 March 2023, the Referrer called the Registered Person for an update regarding the pre-planning application. After several failed calls and messages, the Registered Person called Referrer 1 in mid-April advising that he was in Uganda, returning at the end of April 2023.

ii. The Registered Person had not previously advised Referrer 1 of his travel plans and he promised to follow up on the application on his return to the United Kingdom, as he said getting an allocated officer for the pre-application was proving difficult.

iii. Referrer 1 attempted to contact the Registered Person again at the end of April 2023 and he did not answer her calls. He responded four days later stating that he had jet lag.

7. The Registered Person did not provide Referrer 1 with any update on the status of the planning application, either during his trip to Uganda or after he submitted the pre-application on his return to the United Kingdom, despite knowing that Referrer 1 was anxious for an update.

8. On 11 May 2023, Referrer 1 contacted the Local Planning Authority to check on the status of Referrer 1’s application and was advised that no application had been made. Referrer 1 messaged the Registered Person advising that the application had not been made as he had claimed.

9. The Registered Person submitted the application on 11 May 2023. However, the application was deemed invalid as it was missing the location plan and he had not made the necessary payments to the Local Planning Authority, causing additional delay.

10. The Registered Person did not respond to any further telephone calls or messages.

 

 

Project B

11. The Registered Person was engaged by Referrer 2 to design and submit a planning application for the conversion and extension of a garage into a “granny-annexe”. The expectation was that the Registered Person would deal with the Local Planning Authority on the planning application and associated matters to obtain approval for the development.

12. Referrer 2 paid all fees to carry out the work, amounting to over £3,000.

13. The application was refused on 5 December 2022 on the basis that the drawings were inconsistent with Local Authority planning guidance. It is clear within the Local Planning Authority refusal letter that the proposed scheme was inconsistent with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Documents (‘SPD’) (2011), which the Registered Person should have taken care to have applied to any plans submitted.

14. Prior to the refusal, the Local Authority had alerted the Registered Person that the planning application would be refused as it conflicted with planning policy. This is recorded in the Notice of Decision, in which it is recorded “Consideration was given to seeking amendments, but given conflict with adopted planning policy, notification of intended refusal and the reason(s) for it was given to Mr Mabelle (Agent) by e-mail on 02-12-22”. There is no evidence to show that this information was communicated to Referrer 2, nor was there any discussion of a plan as to how to address these issues.

15. After the initial rejection of the application on 5 December 2022, the Registered Person failed to act without undue delay in the resubmission of his planning application. The Registered Person stated that he would provide revised drawings shortly after 9 December 2022, however did not produce these revised drawings until 7 March 2023. No explanation for this delay was given.

16. Referrer 2 responded to the proposed designs on the same day, however, after chasing the Registered Person for an update, he only received a further response on 7 May 2023. The Registered Person did not respond to messages from Referrer 2 that same day requesting confirmation as to when the application would be resubmitted and he has not heard from him since.

17. The revisions to the drawings issued on 7 March 2023 did not address the reasons for refusal given by the Local Planning Authority, particularly in relation to size and width of the proposed annex and that it was self-contained.

18. Throughout the project, Referrer 2 received messages from the Registered Person stating that he would call, however he had to chase up these phone calls days later when he did not hear further from him.

19. Referrer 2 had to chase the Registered Person multiple times to obtain updates with regards to the progress of his project which were not forthcoming. To date, Referrer 2 has not had confirmation that his application has been resubmitted.

20. The Registered Person did not have adequate resources in place to adequately manage his project alongside his other commitments.

21. The Registered Person had limited capacity within the practice to deal with questions or queries whilst he was in Uganda working on overseas projects, resulting in United Kingdom based projects remaining in limbo until his return.

22. On 7 May 2023, the Registered Person messaged Referrer 2 making reference to other larger projects with which he was involved:

“Don’t forget this is a resubmission and I have many files to deal with and almost everyone is patient. Currently I am handling major projects that were before your resubmission.”

23. The Registered Person did not make Referrer 2 aware of his large workload and the impact that this might cause on the progression of work on his project.

24. Referrer 2 made several complaints directly with the Registered Person and via a mutual builder friend but the Registered Person refused to engage with him.

 

Admissions:

25. In relation to Project A:
a. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to act without undue delay, contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code; and
b. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to keep his client adequately informed of the progress of the project, contrary to Standard 6.3 of the Architects Code.

26. In relation to Project B:
a. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to act competently and/or with skill and care in that he did not maintain and/or apply adequate knowledge in relation to local planning requirements;
b. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to act competently and/or with skill and care in that he did not address the reasons for refusal of the original planning application in revised drawings;
c. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to act without undue delay, contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code;
d. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to keep his client adequately informed of the progress of the project, contrary to Standard 6.3 of the Architects Code;
e. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to provide adequate technical and administrative resources in relation to the work on the Referrer’s project.

 

Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct:

27. In light of the admissions above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct collectively amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

28. Standard 2.3 of the 2017 Architect’s Code (“the Code”) states that an architect is expected to ensure that the necessary local knowledge is available to them to discharge their responsibilities. The Registered Person’s accepts that his failure to maintain and/or apply adequate knowledge in relation to local planning requirements resulting in the refusal of the planning application submitted for Project B.

29. Standard 4.2 of the Code states that an architect should ensure that they are able to provide adequate professional, financial and technical resources when entering into a contract and throughout its duration. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to have adequate resources in place to manage this project alongside his other projects, some of which were large.

30. Standard 6.1 of the Code expects that an architect carries out their work with skill and care and in accordance with the terms of engagement. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to adhere to the local planning requirements, resulting in the planning application being refused on these grounds. Revised drawings prepared for resubmission following refusal did not sufficiently address the issues which had caused the initial refusal and would likely have resulted in a second unsuccessful application.

31. Standard 6.2 of the Code requires an architect to carry out their professional work without undue delay. The Registered Person accepts that he did not adhere to deadlines, whether formal or informal, agreed with clients without reasonable cause or explanation. The Registered Person allowed excessive periods of time to elapse with little or no progress.

32. Standard 6.3 of the Code requires an architect to keep clients aware of the progress of work and to keep their client informed of any issue which may significantly affect its quality or cost of the work undertaken. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to keep each of the Referrers informed of the progress of their applications, leaving them to repeatedly chase for updates.

33. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of these Standards.

 

Disciplinary Order:

34. The Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee, with the consent of the parties and having taken account of its responsibilities to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession, makes the following disciplinary order:

a. a penalty order of £2,000.

35. The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions. He has also admitted that these amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

36. The admitted allegation has the potential to diminish both the Registered Person’s reputation and that of the profession generally and therefore the parties agree that the Registered Person’s conduct is sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order. In light of the admissions, the parties agree that a penalty order of £2,000 is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.

37. The penalty order of £2,000 is payable within 28 days (by 17 March 2025). Should the Registered Person wish to make an application to vary the payment terms then an application must be submitted to ARB for consideration by the Consent Order Panel Chair.