Mr Tillmann Lenz

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

TILLMANN LENZ (068492I)
_______________

Present:
Neil Dalton (Chair)
Robert Dearman (Architect Member)
Neil Calvert (Lay Member)
_______________

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

A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The order is a 6-month suspension.

In respect of the charges against Tillmann Lenz (068492I) (“the Registered Person”):

The Registered Person:

a. 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

b. 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.

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:

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

1) The Architect failed to maintain adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover, contrary to Standard 8.1 of the Architects Code;

2) The Architect’s actions at 1 lacked integrity.

Statement of agreed facts

1. The Registered Person left his position with a large international firm in 2018 and commenced work as a self-employed architect in January 2021.

2. The allegation against the Registered Person arose following a self-referral to ARB’s professional standards department on 12 November 2024.

Concern reported to ARB

3. The Registered Person explained that he had taken some time out after leaving his employment with a large international firm in 2018, and then began freelancing and working as a self-employed architect. The work involved what he described as ‘some small conceptual enquiries’ for his friends and neighbours, before he moved on to a couple of small residential projects in 2022 and 2023.

4. The first project was completed by the Registered Person in 2021, with the residential planning application having been submitted in 2022. He had no further involvement on the project after this. The second residential planning project was carried out by the Registered Person in 2022, with a planning application having been submitted in February 2023. He confirms that he was also involved with the design stage for this project.

5. The Registered Person confirmed that he did not hold Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”) cover during these projects and said that he was trying to resolve the situation. Since the project work was for his neighbours and friends or referrals from such contacts, the Registered Person considered them to be controlled relationships with minimal risk and small fees.

6. The Registered Person acknowledged the lack of PII cover was incorrect, and that he had sought to remedy this by contacting an insurance broker for an appropriate insurance policy. The Registered Person clarified that the insurance broker advised him that the PII cover could be backdated and that the Registered Person should contact ARB for advice. This led to the Registered Person emailing ARB. The Registered Person says he used his own initiative to ask the insurer about the back cover and says he never sought to intentionally leave it out.

Admissions:

7. The Registered Person admits that he failed to maintain adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover, contrary to Standard 8.1 of the Architects Code.

8. The Registered Person admits that his actions at 1 lacked integrity.

Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct

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

10. Standard 8 of the Architects Code (2017) requires registered architects to have appropriate insurance arrangements. The Registered Person admits that he failed to ensure that he had adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover in place. As he had commenced work as a self-employed architect, he should have ensured that his insurance remained adequate to meet a claim. Registered architects are expected to maintain a minimum level of cover, including run-off cover, in accordance with ARB’s guidance. The Registered Person accepts that PII is a fundamental basic requirement for all architects when practicing and that he exposed both himself and his clients to potentially significant financial risks.

11. Standard 1.1 of the Code expects an architect to act act with honesty and integrity and to avoid any actions or situations which are inconsistent with their professional obligations. The Registered Person accepts that he knowingly undertook work for clients without holding PII and by doing so it demonstrates a lack of integrity and a departure from the higher standards that society expects from architects and the standards that the profession expects from its members.

12. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of Standards 1.1 and 8 of the Code.

13. The Registered Person wishes to state the following:

a) He is not contesting the fact of lack of PII insurance in principle but would like to raise mitigating factors when considering the sanction, specifically in relation to the time frame of 2021-2024.

b) He has provided a personal mitigating statement to the Consent Order Panel.

c) He says he has shown remorse from the start and fully co-operated with the process in a professional and timely manner. He also says he has shown initiative for remedial action in setting up and backdating the PII cover.

d) He notified ARB directly when he was personally able to do so based on the circumstances set out above.

Disciplinary Order:

14. 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 suspension for the period of 6 months

15. 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.

16. 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 6-month suspension is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.