A+ A-
Select Page

Mr Graham Rix

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

GRAHAM RIX (050452A)

Held in-person on:

22-24 and 26 September 2025

at:

The General Dental Council (GDC)
37 Wimpole Street
London
W1G 8DQ

_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Chair)
David Mulligan (PCC Architect Member)
Neil Calvert (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) was represented by Mr Jean-Jack Chalmers, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP (“the Presenter”).

Mr Graham Rix (the “Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was represented by Mr Jack Steer of 4 New Square Chambers, instructed by Keoghs LLP.

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:

3) The Registered Person did not inform ARB of his Public Reprimand issued by the Royal Institute of British Architects on 12 September 2022 within 28 days of the finding.

and that by doing so, he acted in breach of namely Standard 9.2 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”).

The sanction imposed by the Committee is a Reprimand.

 

Allegation

 

The Registered Person faces an allegation of unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”) the particulars of which are that:

 

1)The Registered Person did not appropriately manage his own self-interest in that he made misrepresentations about matters relating to the works at his property and their impact on the neighbouring property;

 2) The Registered Person did not communicate in a professional manner

 3) The Registered Person did not inform ARB of his Public Reprimand issued by the Royal Institute of British Architects on 12 September 2022 within 28 days of the finding;

 4) The Registered Person’s acts at particulars 1 and 3 lacked integrity.

 

In doing so, it is alleged that the Registered Person acted in breach of the following standards of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice [2010/2017] (“the Code”):

  • Allegation 1: Standard 1.2;
  • Allegation 2: Standard 1.1 and 12;
  • Allegation 3: Standard 9.2;
  • Allegation 4: Standard 1.1

 

Background​

  1. The Referrer and her husband reside at number 74 (“No.74”) in a road in Cheltenham, a property they acquired in 2018. Their immediate neighbour is the Registered Person, who owns number 76 (“No.76”). Both properties are listed and are situated on a terraced street and have a shared boundary, which includes a garden wall. In 2018, the Registered Person obtained planning permission from Cheltenham Council (“the Council”) for the construction of a coach house at the end of the garden of No.76.

 

  1. In late 2018, builders hired by the Registered Person began work at No.76, causing noise that prompted the Referrer to inquire about the activities. She was told attic renovations were underway adjacent to No.74’s bedrooms. The Registered Person was not present at that time.

 

  1. In February 2021, during a visit to No.76, the Referrer learned that chimney breasts adjoining No.74 had been removed during the works in 2018. She immediately voiced concerns due to the listed status of both properties and questioned the structural safety of this removal, noting it had never been discussed with her or her husband before.

 

  1. On 27 July 2021, the Referrer emailed the Registered Person regarding the existence of any structural reports connected to the removal of the chimney breasts. The Registered Person replied that, as the work was considered non-structural, neither a Party Wall Award nor structural reports were required. The Referrer contends that no measures were ever taken to address the concerns she had raised, such as obtaining an independent structural review, which the Registered Person insisted was unnecessary. These assertions made by the Registered Person are alleged to be a misrepresentation forming part of Particular 1.

 

  1. The Referrer provided further detail concerning boundary issues in addition to the removal of the chimney breasts. She described a number of specific concerns relating to the garden boundary wall. The Referrer reports that a series of Party Wall Notices had been issued in respect of the garden boundary wall.

 

  1. In February 2022, the Registered Person is alleged by the Referrer to have attempted to prompt the Council into issuing a Dangerous Structures Notice (“DSN”) to demolish part of the garden wall. The Council conducted a site visit but no DSN was issued at that time. The Referrer states that at this point in time she simply wanted accurate information of what the Registered Person was planning.

 

  1. A second Council visit took place on 6 May 2022. On 13 May 2022 the Referrer received from the Council a letter comprising a DSN relating to the garden wall. An identical letter was received by the Registered Person. The DSN contained the following passages:

 

“It was noted that the rear garden wall is leaning considerably and is in a dangerous condition. Please arrange for the danger to be removed within the next 14 days… Please note that the should you carry out any remedial works will be subject to Listed Building Consent and permissions obtained”

 

  1. The Referrer sent an email to the Council’s Building Control officer on 13 May 2022 seeking the withdrawal of the DSN in which she stated:

 

“Our concern for an urgent withdrawal relates to the fact that [the Registered Person] seems to be attempting to engineer the ‘demolition by stealth’ of a listed asset so that he can replace this with the side wall of his new building… we believe that the letter will be used by the [Registered Person] as an opportunity to remove more sections of the wall than may be needed.”

 

  1. On 16 May 2022 the Registered Person emailed the Referrer stating that he had also been served with the DSN. Within his email he stated:

 

“…The dangerous walling should be removed as soon as possible, and certainly within the time scale stated… I shall ask (the builder) to get start (sic) removing the dangerous walling immediately”

 

  1. The Referrer responded immediately by email stating that the DSN did not request demolition of the wall, which was not necessary to meet the conditions of the notice. She also stated that if the builder began to remove any sections of the wall before other options had been considered then she would call the police for criminal damage.

 

  1. The assertions made by the Registered Person in his email of 16 May 2022 are alleged to be misrepresentations and form part of the remaining allegations of Particular 1 in that there was no necessity for the wall to be “removed as soon as possible” and instructing his builder to do so misrepresented the way in which the DSN needed to be resolved.

 

  1. The allegations contained in Particular 2 relate to inappropriate communication with the Referrer and focus on the Registered Person’s unprofessional tone and content in emails with the Referrer. ​ For example, it is alleged that the Registered Person accused the Referrer of waging a campaign against him, made dismissive and disrespectful comments, and sent emails containing accusations of vindictiveness, bullying, and harassment.

 

  1. One example is a lengthy email of 30 May 2022 in which the Registered Person accused the Referrer of waging a campaign against him, being vindictive, and bullying others. ​ He also made allegations about her behaviour and discussed her actions with others.

 

  1. The Registered Person also made claims that the Referrer engaged in activities such as “sneaking in” to his property to take photographs, reporting his workers to the authorities, and “digging in skips”, all of which the Referrer disputed. The Registered Person is also accused of making disparaging remarks about the Referrer to other neighbours and professionals, including calling her actions “spiteful” and accusing the Referrer of an attempt to “sabotage” his ​building plans.

 

  1. It is alleged that the Registered Person’s emails became increasingly dismissive and disrespectful, including comments such as “you write in riddles” and accusations of lying about various matters.

 

  1. The Referrer made a complaint to the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in January 2022 and on 12 September 2022 a decision was made by RIBA to issue the Registered Person with a Public Reprimand. This had been notified to the ARB in the Referrer’s letter of complaint to ARB on 7 December 2022. This was the first time ARB had been notified of the reprimand issued by RIBA. The subject matter of the RIBA complaint, although connected to these ARB allegations, do not overlap with them.

 

  1. Finally, Particular 4 alleges that the facts as alleged in Particulars 1 and 3 amount to a lack of integrity.

 

  1. The ARB instructed an expert, Mr Samuel Morley (SM), to provide expert evidence primarily in relation to Particular 1 in this case. At the time of his instruction the issues he reported upon were significantly wider than the issues before the Committee, but his report in full was put forward to assist clarification on the complex background to this matter.

 

  1. SM expressed concerns regarding the actions of the Registered Person following receipt of the DSN in May 2022. He is particularly troubled by the decision to proceed with the immediate demolition of the garden wall. According to SM, this proposed course of action was taken without due consideration for the requirements of the Party Wall Act or the necessity of obtaining listed building consent. He notes that the only stipulation set out in the DSN was that “the danger is removed within the next 14 days”, and therefore, immediate demolition was not mandated.

 

  1. SM was concerned that the Registered Person may have used the DSN to advance his own interests as a means to facilitate the construction of the Coach House and to expedite the demolition of the garden wall, rather than solely addressing any immediate safety concerns. He opined that the actions taken by the Registered Person fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent architect. He underscored his point by noting that he had not been provided with definitive evidence from the structural engineers involved to confirm that the garden wall was, in fact, unsafe.

 

  1. SM also commented upon the issue of the removal of the chimney breasts in 2018, noting that such work would ordinarily fall under the Party Wall Act due to its potential structural implications. He stated that this Act requires certain procedures to be followed when building work might affect the structural integrity of a shared wall or a neighbour’s property.

 

  1. SM noted that the Registered Person did not issue a Party Wall Notice to the Referrers relating to the removal of the chimney breasts. The Registered Person had asserted that issuing such a notice was not necessary. However, SM disagreed with this approach and expressed the view that the Registered Person’s actions fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent architect regarding the removal of the chimney breasts. He states that a Party Wall Notice should have been issued and expressed concern that the Registered Person failed to engage an independent structural engineer to verify the matter, which he found concerning given the potential for the works to impact neighbouring properties.

 

The Registered Person’s Response

 

  1. The Registered Person had responded to all of the allegations by way of a written statement and submissions.

 

Particular 1

 

  1. The Registered Person stated that his interpretation of the Party Wall Act, both at the time the chimney breasts were removed and when he responded to the Referrer in 2021, was that the Act grants a building owner, as defined under the Act, certain rights that extend beyond those provided at common law. These additional rights are available to a building owner if they choose to invoke the provisions of the Act, but they do not have to invoke the Act.

 

  1. He asserted that a “building owner” refers specifically to an individual who intends to take advantage of the rights conferred by the Act, and that the property owner, therefore, has the discretion to either exercise the rights provided under the Act or to rely solely on their common law rights when undertaking works involving a party wall. He stated that in the context of his removal of the chimney breasts in 2018 he elected not to exercise the rights available under the Act. Instead, he relied on his common law rights to carry out the work so he did not qualify as a “building owner” as defined by the Act for that purpose, and his actions continued to be governed by common law, unaffected by the provisions of the Party Wall Act.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated that as he did not serve notice under the Party Wall Act, its provisions were not engaged and there was no basis for any Party Wall Act Award to be made in relation to the works. Therefore, his response to the questions raised by the Referrer were factually accurate and were his genuinely held belief at the time.

 

  1. The Registered Person submitted that his analysis at the relevant time is consistent with the recent case of Shah v Power & Kyson [2022] EWHC 209 (QB). Furthermore, his approach aligns with Mr Matthew Hearsum’s commentary on Shah, as set out in the article “Party Walls at Common Law, Is the 1996 Act Optional?”, a copy of which he provided to the Committee.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated that at all material times he believed that his statements to the Referrer regarding the applicability of the Party Wall Act and the possibility of a party wall award were entirely accurate.

 

  1. The Registered Person asserted that the chimney breasts removed in 2018 extended only one storey in height and were supported solely by floor joists. In addition, there were no corresponding chimney breasts on the lower levels, and the structures terminated at the ceiling, with no chimney stack above. The chimney breasts were constructed using lime mortar and there was virtually no bonding present between the chimney breasts and the party wall separating his property from the Referrer’s property. Given these circumstances, it was clear to him that removing the chimney breasts would not compromise the structural integrity of the property, nor would it pose any risk to the Referrer’s property.

 

  1. The Registered Person concluded that obtaining a report from a structural engineer in 2018 was unnecessary. Consequently, the Registered Person maintains that his communication to the Referrer regarding the absence of a need for a structural report was wholly accurate and not misleading.

 

  1. The Registered Person pointed out that he would have the greatest motivation to ensure that the removal of the chimney breasts would not result in any structural damage as such damage would most likely affect his own property the most.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated that, on receiving the DSN in May 2022, he genuinely believed that removing the wall, or at least the dangerous parts of it, would constitute a legitimate method of complying with the notice. This course of action was considered by him to be appropriate to eliminate the danger posed by the wall within the required timeframe. The Registered Person stated that in his email to the Referrer on 16 May 2022 he did not assert that removing the wall was the sole means of complying with the DSN.

 

  1. He also stated that the same day, after the Referrer responded raising objections to the removal of the wall, the local authority was consulted regarding the necessary steps to address the danger posed by the wall and how to comply with the notice. Following this, the Registered Person did not instruct his builder to proceed with the removal of the wall and it remains in place to this day. He states that the assertions he made to the Referrer in his email of 16 May 2022s were not misleading nor were they intended to be.

 

  1. In conclusion, the Registered Person denies that any of the statements he made to the Referrer were misleading and therefore could not lack integrity as alleged by Particular 4.

 

Particular 2

 

  1. The Registered Person acknowledged that, on certain occasions, the tone adopted in communications with the Referrer was unprofessional but he sought to provide context in that the communications did not occur within a professional setting and arose out of a private dispute with neighbours that had become increasingly hostile.

 

  1. He asserted that the context was entirely separate from the Registered Person’s professional activities or responsibilities as an architect. Notwithstanding this, the Registered Person expressed regret for the tone of some of these communications with the Referrer and emphasised that such communications did not reflect how he interacts with clients or third parties in the course of his professional practice. He asserted that the standards to be upheld in a professional context should remain distinct to those in personal exchanges.

 

Particular 3

 

  1. The Registered Person acknowledged that he did not inform the ARB of the reprimand issued by the RIBA within the required 28-day period. However, he denied that this failure was due to a lack of integrity as alleged in Particular 4. He pointed out that the RIBA sanction was a matter of public record and there could be no reasonable suggestion that he attempted to conceal the sanction from the ARB.

 

  1. The Registered Person noted that RIBA sanctions, or those from any other professional body, were not listed among the examples of matters required to be reported to the ARB under Standard 9.2. These examples predominantly referenced criminal or adverse financial findings. As such, it did not occur to him that he was obliged to report the reprimand to the ARB and this was an oversight and constituted a genuine misunderstanding regarding the scope of his obligations under Standard 9.2.

 

Stage 1 – Findings of Fact

 

  1. The PCC Rules make it clear that the burden of proof at the fact-finding stage is on the ARB. So, it is for the ARB to prove the factual particulars set out in the allegation. It is not for the Registered Person to disprove them.

 

  1. The ARB must prove the charges on the balance of probabilities, another way of putting that is, “is it more likely than not that the allegations occurred as alleged?”

 

  1. The Committee will take into account the established case law that, although the standard of proof always remains the same, namely on the balance of probabilities, the more serious the charge the less likely it is to have been committed so the more cogent is the evidence needed to prove it.

 

  1. In this case, on the allegation being read, the Registered Person made formal admissions to Particular 3 and this factual particular is found proved in accordance with Rule 25(d). The Committee noted that the Registered Person did not accept that the admitted conduct set out in Particular 3 amounted to a lack of integrity as alleged in Particular 4.

 

  1. The Registered Person denied Particulars 1, 2 and 4. The parties agreed that the term “made misrepresentations” alleged in Particular 1 should be read as meaning “knowingly made misleading statements” and that the specific misrepresentations relied upon by the ARB were narrowed to include only two statements made by the Registered Person to the Referrer.

 

  1. The first is the statement that there was “no need for a Party Wall Award” and that “given that the removal was non-structural, there were no structural reports” contained in the Registered Person’s email to the Referrer of 27 July 2021. This is hereafter referred to as the Party Wall Act (”PWA”) statement. The second statement is that “the dangerous wall should be removed as soon as possible, and certainly within the timescale stated” as set out in an email dated 16 May 2022 from the Registered Person to the Referral when discussing a DSN that they had each received. Hereafter referred to as the DSN statement.

 

  1. In coming to its findings, the Committee considered the written documentation provided by both the ARB and the Registered Person together with the oral evidence of the Referrer Ms Cathy Presland, the expert witness SM, and the Registered Person. The Committee also took into account the submissions made by the Presenter on behalf of the ARB and by Mr Steer on behalf of the Registered Person.

 

  1. The Committee received and accepted the legal advice provided by the Chair including that the Committee should adopt and apply the ordinary meaning of the term “misleading”, namely that something is misleading if it gives the wrong idea or impression.

 

  1. When considering conduct that lacks integrity, the Committee was advised by the Chair to apply the judgment in the Court of Appeal case Wingate and Evans v Solicitors Regulation Authority which was heard together with the case of SRA v Malins reported at 2018 EWCA 366 which confirmed that integrity is a broader concept than honesty and is less easy to define in terms of professional codes of conduct. The term integrity is a useful shorthand to express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which the professions expect from their own members.

 

  1. The underlying rationale is that the professions have a privileged and trusted role in society and in return they are required to live up to their own professional standards. Integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession. A professional disciplinary tribunal has specialist knowledge of the profession to which the Registered Person belongs and of the ethical standards of that profession. Accordingly, such a body is well placed to identify lack of integrity.

 

  1. The Committee then proceeded to consider each of the disputed particulars in turn and makes its findings of fact as follows. The Committee notes that there are many areas of dispute between the Registered Person and the Referrer but this Committee is not tasked with resolving anything other than the alleged conduct as set out in the particulars.

 

Particular 1 – The Registered Person did not manage his own self-interest in that he made misrepresentations about matters relating to the works at his property and their impact on the neighbouring property

 

  1. This particular was broken to two assertions as set out in paragraph 6 above.

 

  1. The ARB case is that it was knowingly misleading for the Registered Person to assert that the PWA did not apply. The email of 27 July 2021 on one reading appears to suggest that the PWA was not required because of the non-structural nature of the work. However, in his written statement and in oral evidence the Registered Person says that he simply said that the PWA did not apply and he then moved on to discuss the structural issues.

 

  1. The Committee found that the email has potential to mislead if interpreted in that way and that is the way in which the ARB suggest the email was intended to be understood. The terms of the PWA and its application to party wall works involving the removal of a projecting chimney breast do not appear to be qualified by a requirement that the works are structural or not.

 

  1. The Registered Person states that this is an incorrect interpretation of his email. He explained that he was responding to questions posed by the Referrer and the first of which was whether a PWA notification had been given to the previous occupier. His response “There was no need for a party wall award for these two breasts,” was intended to be a complete answer to that discrete question. He conceded that his punctuation might have created some confusion, but these were simply errors and not an attempt to mislead.

 

  1. His further comments about whether the works were structural or not were, he says, in response to the Referrer’s question as to the existence of any structural reports that had been commissioned at the time of the works. Therefore, his statement “Given that the removal was non-structural, there were no structural reports.” was an accurate answer and not misleading.

 

  1. The Committee found that the Registered Person has an enthusiastic and detailed interest in the PWA and his understanding of the requirements of the PWA is consistent with published commentary. The parties agreed that this Committee need not reach any findings on the proper interpretation of when or if the PWA has application only whether the Registered Person was genuinely asserting his understanding in his communications with the Referrer.

 

  1. The Committee noted the relevant context of this particular is of an email sent in response to questions from a neighbour. The Registered Person did not draft the email with a view that the content would receive such close scrutiny years later and he accepts that with the benefit of hindsight that he could have been clearer in both punctuation and content.

 

  1. The Committee found that in order to find any of the statements made by the Registered Person misleading in themselves would require an adverse interpretation of the content of the statements. The Committee was unable to find that such an adverse interpretation could reasonably be found on the evidence. The explanation given by the Registered Person as to the intended meaning of the content of his email was plausible and, on the balance of probabilities, it is not proved that the content was knowingly misleading.

 

  1. The second part of the 27 July email concerned the comment that the work undertaken in removing the chimney breast was non-structural. The evidence in support of this was exclusively from the Registered Person who described how in 2018 the breasts were loosely bonded to the party wall and easily removed without any impact on the structure of the building.

 

  1. The witness SM (instructed by the ARB as an expert witness) stated that he had seen no evidence in support of the Registered Person’s contention save that there was no evidence any damage was caused by the removal of the breasts. The Committee finds that SM’s finding as to the lack of evidence ignores the burden of proof which rests on the ARB. The lack of any supporting evidence that the work was non-structural does not undermine the Registered Person and, in fact, the lack of any subsequent damage provides some support that the work was not structural.

 

  1. The Committee also finds that the suggestion that the comments regarding the structural nature of the chimney breast removal are not probably misleading in nature and there is no evidence that the Registered Person made these statements knowing that they were misleading.

 

  1. For these reasons, the Committee is not satisfied that the ARB has proved that the statements made by the Registered Person on 27 July 2021 were knowingly misleading.

 

  1. The Committee next examined the statements made by the Registered person on 16 May 2022 relating to the DSN issued by Building Control (”BC”) on 11 May 2022. There appeared to be a suggestion of the Registered Person somehow manipulating the issuance of the DSN. Although there is clear evidence that the Registered Person had expressed some interest previously in whether a DSN was required in respect of the garden wall, it is not likely as BC conducted an inspection and it was their decision to issue the DSN.

 

  1. The Committee noted that the Referrer was clearly in fear of what she described as “demolition by stealth” in her response to BC on 13 May 2022. The Committee noted that removing the danger is not the same as removing the wall. This email from the Referrer suggests that she was already thinking poorly of what the Registered Person may have been intending to do before having received his email of 16 May 2022.

 

  1. The ARB case is that the Registered Person was, in his email of 16 May, improperly inflating the action necessary to resolve the DSN and forcing the Referrer towards that action. He says that he was simply suggesting one option to remove the danger by making the wall safe through rebuilding.

 

  1. The Committee noted the context of mistrust and uncertainty of the Registered Person’s intention and the suspicion pervades the Referrer’s perception. The Referrer saw the DSN as the Registered Person attempting to engineer the ‘demolition by stealth’ of a listed asset.

 

  1. The Committee gave careful attention to the Referrer’s evidence including her written statement in which she states in respect of the 16 May email:

 

“The tone of this email was not one that invited discussion and measured consideration of how to proceed and, as is his pattern, the Registered Person leapt straight to a single solution (removal of the wall), regardless of other considerations that might result in a more appropriate, response to repair/remedial works in any given set of circumstances…I also note the if/then formulation again, implying that “if” we do something (consent to his proposal for a new build wall, regardless of the refusal of planning permissions for the same) then he will consent to us paying for a repair that doesn’t need doing”

 

  1. The Committee has carefully read the email of 16 May. It does not overtly demonstrate any “tone” that deters discussion or measured consideration as suggested by the Referrer. It sets out the Registered Person’s proposed method of dealing with the DSN. The single solution was not the “removal” of the wall as the Referrer asserted, in fact it is for a rebuild using the same bricks which aligns more closely with the Referrer’s description of “repair/remedial” The email could not be described as suggesting the demolition or removal or “a proposal for a new build wall.”

 

  1. Although there were other methods of responding to the DSN in the short term (erecting warning tape, barriers, etc) it is not surprising to the Committee that an architect might look to identify a longer-term solution. That is what is put forward in the email of 16 May and it is within a range of reasonable and potentially permissible responses in the circumstances that existed at that time.

 

  1. These proposals might well have aligned with the Registered Person’s previous plans for the rebuild of the wall, but to infer a malicious or sinister intent is a harsh inference to draw in the absence of more cogent evidence supporting such an assertion.

 

  1. If this DSN was engineered by the Registered Person there is no cogent evidence of that. Such a theory ignores that BC would have the final say and there is no suggestion that they were improperly influenced by the Registered Person. Further, if the issuance of the DSN was a fortuitous opportunity that enabled the Registered Person to demolish the wall with the comfort of a veil of authority it is notable that neither he nor his builder acted upon this opportunity even though the wall would appear easily demolished in a matter of hours or even minutes. The absence of such action might not be particularly probative of anything, but in the context of these allegations it demonstrates a lack of evidential support for the theories advanced relating to the Registered Person’s sinister intentions.

 

  1. The Referrer strongly asserted in oral evidence that to describe these issues as a “dispute” was an incorrect characterisation and that she only ever sought clarification of works and whether everything was in accordance with proper process. The Committee’s view is that it is evident that there was considerable tension at this time and that communications were strained to breaking point. The emails between the Referrer and Registered Person that immediately followed the DSN have a strong suggestion of passive aggression and by the 19th May matters had deteriorated significantly.

 

  1. A conversation in the street to discuss the ongoing issues deteriorated into mutual accusations of intimidation that culminated in the Registered Person receiving verbal abuse from the Referrer, a matter that she accepted in evidence and for which she expressed her regret. If there was ever any doubt that this was a neighbour dispute, it would appear that by this point in time that doubt had evaporated. However, it is worthy of note that Referrer describes ending that particular exchange by sharing a hug with the Registered Person. The Committee observes that the relationship between these neighbours was, at that stage, volatile in nature.

 

  1. For the reasons explained above the Committee finds that the content of the 16 May 2022 email was not knowingly misleading. Taking all of the Committee’s findings in respect of the allegations contained within Particular 1, we find this particular not proved.

 

Particular 2 – The Registered Person did not communicate on a professional manner

 

  1. The Registered Person has made some admissions in respect of the tone and content. He accepts some sarcasm, an unprofessional tone, and informal comments. These are to be found throughout the communications and can properly be described as flippant, dismissive, and rude, at times. They reflect the nature of the relationship between these neighbours in the context of tensions over the planning issues. As was demonstrated by the unfortunate exchange referred to above, the Registered Person is not the only party at fault in respect of respectful modes of communication, but he is an architect and member of ARB.

 

  1. The Committee accepts that communication in a professional manner is not to be expected in all facets of life. He is entitled to express himself less formally in context of a neighbour dispute than with clients, but within limits. In the context of this case, he had introduced himself to the Referrer with reference to his architect status. In fact, he had relied upon his professional status to reinforce the correctness of his assertions regarding the PWA and other matters.

 

  1. He moved from conversing as a neighbour to utilising his professional status and has brought into the dispute his position as an architect. As such he loses the shield that this is simply a dispute between neighbours. He is now in a dispute where his status as an architect is relied upon.

 

  1. He accepted in evidence that he would never communicate in this fashion in his everyday professional activities with clients or third parties. In the Committee’s view he had taken his professional status into the communications with his neighbour. He was the architect in respect of the project and he had relied upon his professional status. As such he should have maintained a proper and professional manner in his communications and he did not do so.

 

  1. The Committee is not satisfied that Standard 12 is engaged by this conduct. The Committee does not find that the comments were unfair or discriminatory, but we do find that Standard 1.2 is engaged in that the conduct was discreditable to the profession. For this reason, Particular 2 is proved.

 

Particular 3 – The Registered Person did not inform ARB of his Public Reprimand issued by RIBA on 12 September 2022 and – Particular 4 – that his actions lacked integrity.

 

  1. The facts of Particular 3 were admitted but the Registered Person contended that this did not amount to a lack of integrity.

 

  1. The Committee considered it notable that ARB has recently supplemented the list of examples of reportable occurrences in Standard 9.2 of the Code to clarify that regulatory findings (such as from RIBA) should also be notified. This demonstrated that the guidance to members existing at the relevant time might not have been entirely clear.

 

  1. The Registered Person said that he did not think it was reportable and gave evidence that he assumed the public nature of the RIBA decision and the links with ARB would be sufficient. The question for the Committee was whether that was a reasonable assumption. After the closing submissions had been made but before a decision had been finalised the Committee was provided with confirmation that RIBA’s published policy was that the ARB will be notified of any public sanction imposed. Although this does not appear to have taken place it supports the Registered Person’s assertion that he expected the ARB to be made aware of the RIBA determination.

 

  1. The ARB position in closing was that if the Registered Person knew that he was required to report the RIBA decision and failed to do so this would amount to a lack of integrity but if his failing was inadvertent or that he failed to turn mind to this issue, then that points away from a lack of integrity.

 

  1. The Committee noted that the test for a lack of integrity was essentially objective but nevertheless involves having regard to the state of mind of the Registered Person as well as the facts which the person concerned knew.

 

  1. The Committee finds that the Registered Person did not turn a blind eye to the obvious, he had considered his position and assumed (correctly) that RIBA and ARB would have provisions to notify each other but also concluded (wrongly) that it was not reportable by him directly to the ARB. As ARB conceded in closing submissions this militates away from a finding of a lack of integrity. For this reason, Particular 4 is not proved in respect of Particular 3.

 

Stage 2 – Unacceptable Professional Conduct

 

  1. The Committee went on from the fact-finding stage to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct in relation to the findings of Particulars 2 and 3 amounted to Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC).

 

  1. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter on behalf of the ARB, from Mr Steer on behalf of the Registered Person and accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair. The Committee reminded itself that a finding of UPC is a matter for its own independent judgement having regard to any facts found proved. There is no burden or standard of proof.

 

  1. The Committee noted that UPC is defined in section 14(1)(a) of the Architects Act 1997 as conduct which falls short of the standard required of an Architect. The Committee further noted that misconduct, which is akin to UPC, was defined in the case of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1 AC 311 as: “a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”.

 

  1. The standards required to be followed by the Registered Person are contained in The Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017. 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 result in a finding of UPC. However, a failure to follow the guidance of the Code, whether in one’s professional or private life, is a factor that will be taken into account should it be necessary to examine the conduct or competence of an architect.

 

  1. The Committee also reminded itself of the relevance of drawing a distinction between a single act and multiple acts of concern, viz. “a single negligent act or omission is less likely to cross the threshold of misconduct than multiple acts or omissions and a single instance of negligent treatment unless very serious indeed, would be unlikely to constitute deficient professional performance.” (R (Calhaem) v General Medical Council [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin).)

 

  1. The Committee had regard to the case of Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin) and noted 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” is required. The Committee also recognised that any failing must be serious as was confirmed in the case of Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin) and that seriousness needs to be given proper weight, as described by Collins J in Nandi v GMC (2004) EWHC 2317 (Admin) as “conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

 

Particular 2

 

  1. At stage 1 the Committee found that the Registered Person’s actions in respect of Particular 2 fell short of Standard 1.2 of the Code in that his communications were discreditable.

 

  1. The Committee determined that the Registered Person’s inappropriate communication was not a single lapse, but rather a persistent pattern of behaviour. This conduct continued over a considerable period and did not diminish, even after the Referrer raised objections regarding its nature. The sustained nature of these communications was a matter of concern to the Committee, as it suggested a disregard for the impact on the recipient and a failure to address issues once they were brought to the Registered Person’s attention.

 

  1. In reaching its findings, the Committee acknowledged that the context of these exchanges was not identical to those typically encountered between an architect and a client in a strictly professional environment. Specifically, it was recognised that the Registered Person’s personal and professional perspectives became intertwined within his communications with the Referrer. This blending of roles contributed to the inappropriate tone and content of the exchanges, as the Registered Person failed to maintain a clear separation between professional responsibilities and personal opinion.

 

  1. The Committee observed that, throughout the communications in question, there was no instance where the Registered Person’s language could be characterised as threatening, violent, or abusive. In fact, the Committee established that the single identified use of profanity during the exchanges between the Registered Person and the Referrer did not originate from him. Additionally, the Committee recognised that the interactions were, at times, marked by a mutual sense of distrust and underlying acrimony, which was evident in the tone and substance of the correspondence.

 

  1. The evidence before the Committee made it clear that the Registered Person’s behaviour towards the Referrer was inappropriate in that it involved repeated teasing and mocking. The Committee noted that his communications were frequently marked by prickly and barbed remarks, often delivered with an undertone of passive aggression. This demonstrated a failure to maintain proper professional boundaries, as the Registered Person allowed personal feelings and frustrations to override his professional judgement.

 

  1. Furthermore, it was apparent that, on occasion, the Registered Person treated his neighbour as a target for his exasperation, rather than considering the impact such behaviour might have on her or the negative impression it would create of himself as a professional. The Committee recognised the significance of these shortcomings, especially in light of the Registered Person’s own admission to having been rude and unprofessional. He acknowledged to the Committee that he had lost perspective and in doing so failed to exercise the expected standards of professional conduct in his interactions with the Referrer.

 

  1. The Committee took great care assessing whether the behaviour crossed the line of seriousness into unacceptable professional conduct.

 

  1. In considering its decision, the Committee carefully evaluated the impact that the ongoing neighbour dispute had on the Registered Person’s ability to maintain composure and professional behaviour. It was recognised that the protracted nature of the dispute significantly influenced the Registered Person’s temperament. Despite the frustration arising from the situation, the Committee determined that, at worst, the Registered Person’s responses amounted to juvenile teasing.

 

  1. While this immature conduct was certainly unbecoming of a professional and should now be the cause of considerable personal embarrassment to the Registered Person, the Committee concluded that it did not reach the threshold of seriousness required to justify a public formal censure. Specifically, the behaviour, though regrettable, was not sufficiently grave to support a finding of unacceptable professional conduct in this instance.

 

  1. The Committee, while not finding that the Registered Person’s actions amounted to UPC, wishes to provide advice that is relevant not only to the Registered Person but also to all members of the profession. It is imperative for professionals to exercise care in both the manner and content of their communications. This responsibility becomes particularly important in situations where the boundaries between professional and personal life are not clearly defined and may overlap.

 

  1. The Architects Code recognises that there may be instances where personal and private matters intersect with professional obligations, and it does not establish a strict dividing line to guide such circumstances. As such, it falls to individual architects to exercise sound judgement and to act with appropriate caution when navigating these situations. In doing so, professionals can uphold the standards expected of them and maintain the integrity of the profession.

 

Particular 3

 

  1. The Committee finds that the Registered Person’s actions in respect of Particular 3 fell short of Standard 9.2 of the Code. The list of examples of reportable occurrences set out in Standard 9.2 is not an exhaustive list but the finding of RIBA did bring him into disrepute and could reflect badly on the profession.

 

  1. The Committee was mindful that there has been no finding of a lack of integrity in respect of this particular. The failure to report the RIBA finding was an act of negligence by the Registered Person and the case of Calhaem (above) suggests that isolated negligent acts (or omissions) are less likely to cross the threshold of seriousness.

 

  1. The Committee gave careful consideration to whether the breach constituted a serious falling short of the standards expected. In doing so, the Committee noted that the consequences arising from such breaches can vary significantly, depending on the seriousness of the particular reportable occurrence in question.

 

  1. To address the issue of seriousness, the Committee began by evaluating whether a breach of this Standard, in and of itself, should be regarded as serious. This initial approach enabled the Committee to objectively assess the gravity of the breach, irrespective of any specific circumstances, and to determine whether the breach warranted further action in accordance with the regulatory framework.

 

  1. Standard 9.2 serves as a crucial mechanism that enables the ARB to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities, particularly in safeguarding the public. The Committee recognises that when adverse findings are not reported in accordance with this Standard, the ARB’s ability to effectively perform its regulatory function is compromised. This failure not only impedes public protection but also places the reputation of the architectural profession at risk.

 

  1. The Committee therefore determines that any breach of Standard 9.2 is inherently serious. Such a breach has the potential to undermine specific provisions established to ensure public safety and uphold the integrity of the profession. The significance of Standard 9.2 lies in its role in maintaining public trust and supporting the ARB’s mandate to oversee and regulate the profession in the public interest.

 

  1. The Committee has determined that there is no scope for introducing a variable standard regarding whether a report should be made to the ARB based on the Registered Person’s own judgement or assessment. The requirements of the Code are explicit: if a Registered Person is ever in doubt about whether a particular matter should be reported, it is their responsibility to seek clarification directly from the ARB.

 

  1. The duty to make such a report rests squarely with the member concerned. This obligation is not negated or lessened by the assumption that another party (in this case RIBA) may also be making the notification. It is incumbent upon each Registered Person to ensure that any potentially reportable occurrence is brought to the attention of the ARB, in accordance with the standards set out in the Code.

 

  1. The Committee acknowledges that, in this case, certain factors warrant careful consideration. Notably, it is recognised that RIBA has in place a policy whereby it notifies ARB of any public disciplinary findings. Additionally, it is relevant that the ARB has recently taken steps to clarify its guidance regarding what constitutes a reportable occurrence under the Code.

 

  1. While these points are acknowledged as matters that may serve to mitigate the circumstances of the case, the Committee concludes that they do not diminish the overarching seriousness of the breach in question. Rather, these factors may be taken into account when considering the appropriate sanction to be imposed. They do not alter the Committee’s decision that the failure to report constitutes a breach of sufficient gravity to amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

 

  1. The Committee finds the facts proved in respect of Particular 3 amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

 

Sanction

 

  1. Having found the Registered Person’s actions amounted to UPC the Committee then went on to consider what, if any, sanction to impose in this case. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter, on behalf of ARB, and from Mr Steer for the Registered Person. The Committee accepted the legal advice from the Chair and took careful note of the ARB Sanctions Guidance (the Guidance) adopted by the PCC from 1 April 2022.

 

  1. The Committee had regard to the public interest which includes the need to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and ARB and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, behaviour and competence.

 

  1. The Committee was mindful that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect and any sanction imposed must balance the rights of the Registered Person against the need to uphold proper standards and protect the public.

 

  1. The Committee first assessed the seriousness of the finding of UPC with reference to the facts found proved during the hearing and by considering the competing aggravating and mitigating factors.

 

  1. The Committee found no aggravating factors beyond the findings made at stages 1 and 2.

 

  1. The Committee found the following mitigating factors:

i. There was little risk of harm to clients.

ii. The conduct represented an isolated failing of brief duration in an otherwise unblemished career.

iii. There was evidence of insight and regret both before and during the hearing.

iv. There is evidence of prior good character including testimonials.

v. Appropriate admissions as to the facts were made at an early stage.

 

  1. The Committee took account of the testimonials provided in support of the character of the Registered Person and noted that the underlying RIBA sanction was at the lower end of the range of sanctions available to that organisation.

 

  1. Taking all of these factors together, the Committee finds that this matter falls towards the lower end of seriousness.

 

  1. In mitigation Mr Steer submitted that the Registered Person’s failing was simply one of human error and that it was not immediately clear to him that Standard 9.2 required disclosure of the RIBA findings. He suggested that support for this contention was provided by the relevant ARB guidance recently being amended to provide greater clarity. That must, he submitted, have been prompted by a realisation at ARB that the existing guidance was insufficiently clear.

 

  1. He also submitted that there was a reasonable expectation that RIBA would have reported the findings directly to ARB. Although Mr Steer conceded that the Registered Person was unaware of it, RIBA did have such a policy. The Committee notes this, but even if RIBA had notified ARB, which it didn’t, the Registered Person would still have been obliged to make the notification to ARB himself.

 

  1. The Committee went on to consider the sanctions available to it in ascending order. It first considered whether it was appropriate to impose no sanction. Given the importance of the maintenance of public safety and the reputation of the profession through strict compliance with Standard 9.2, this was not considered appropriate. The Guidance suggests that this course of action would be appropriate only in “exceptional circumstances” which the Committee considers do not apply to the facts of this case.

 

  1. A Reprimand was considered next. The Committee finds that there is no evidence that the Registered Person poses a risk to the public and his conduct has not seriously affected clients or the wider public. There is evidence of insight and remorse and of previous good disciplinary history (save for the RIBA decision that is the subject of these findings). The Committee accepts that the conduct set out in Particular 3 represented an isolated incident and the Registered Person’s actions were not deliberate and his conduct has been found at Stage 1 not to have lacked integrity.

 

  1. The Committee is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, a reprimand is the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

 

  1. In order to confirm the correctness of this decision the Committee looked at the factors that would militate the sanction of a Penalty Order. None of the relevant factors dissuaded the Committee that a reprimand was the correct sanction.

 

  1. The Committee therefore imposes a reprimand. The Registered Person will no doubt be aware that this decision is likely to be required to be reported to RIBA.

 

  1. This concludes this determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARB Logo yellow square
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.

For more information about our Privacy Policy, please click here.