Mr Joseph Aniedu

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

JOSEPH EMEKA OBIDIRE ANIEDU (085213I)

Held in person on:

16 to 20 December 2024

At:
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations
Regent’s Wharf, 8 All Saints Street
London N1 9RL

———-

Present
Sadia Zouq (Committee Chair)

Stuart Carr (Committee Architect Member)

Neil Calvert (Committee Lay Member)

———-

In this case, the ARB was represented by Mr Alexis Dite, (“the Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Mr Joseph Aniedu (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was represented by Ms Heather McMahon instructed by Kennedys LLP.

Allegation

1. Mr Joseph Aniedu (“the Registered Person”) is charged by the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) with unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”), and the Professional Conduct Committee (“the Committee”) is responsible for deciding whether the allegation is found proved, or not. The ARB relies upon the following particulars in support of the allegation:

(1) The Registered Person failed to produce a design in line with the client’s requirements.
(2) The Registered Person failed to keep the Complainant adequately informed of matters affecting the cost of their project.
(3) The Registered Person failed to provide the Complainant with a copy of their written complaint’s procedure.
and that by doing so, he acted in breach of namely Standards 6.1, 6.3, 9.2 and 10.2 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”).

Preliminary matters

Admissions

2. The Registered Person admitted factual particulars 1, 2 and 3 at the outset of the hearing. The Professional Conduct Committee Chair (“Committee Chair”) announced that the admitted factual particulars had been found proved by reason of the Registered Person’s admissions.

County Court Order

3. The Committee noted that a County Court Judgment dated 14 February 2024 was included in the ARB’s bundle and referred to in both the Referrer’s and Registered Person’s witness statements. The judgment ordered the Registered Person to pay £1,455, plus interest and court fees to the Referrer by 28 February 2024. The PCC Chair invited submissions from the parties on the relevance of the Country Court Judgment in respect of these proceedings. The Committee Chair referred the parties to the case of Enemuwe v. Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 2081 (Admin) and advised that normally, findings made in previous proceedings or investigations are not admissible in proceedings before a PCC.

4. The legal representatives submitted that because the Registered Person admitted the factual particulars, the County Court Judgment was relevant evidence to show that the Court had ruled in favour of the Referrer in respect of her claim against the Registered Person who was ordered to pay a sum of money to the Referrer within 14 days.

Factual background

5. The Registered Person is a registered Architect and Technical Director of his own company, AGA Associates.

6. This case arises out of a complaint made by Ms Charlotte Corner-Munroe (“the Referrer”), in respect of the professional services carried out by the Registered Person in relation to a property she purchased for herself and her daughter (“the Property”) which is located in Kingston Upon Thames.

Design brief

7. The Referrer’s property is a ground floor flat within a detached period conversion, comprising one bedroom, a reception room, a kitchen and a bathroom. The Referrer wished to renovate the property in order to create a second double bedroom for use by the Referrer’s daughter and to install a bath and to remove the existing shower. To achieve this, the Referrer wished to extend the building by 3 metres from the end of the existing property.

8. The Referrer engaged the Registered Person to design the alterations and extension of the property. This initial contact came through a longtime friend, who is married to the Registered Person. On 19 August 2022, the Referrer received an Architectural Fee Proposal from the Registered Person.

9. The Referrer communicated the brief verbally to the Registered Person during a site visit on 19 December 2022. During the visit, the Registered Person expressed some reservations about the proposal, despite the neighbouring building extending beyond that which was proposed.

10. The Referrer proposed two alternative approaches to the layouts required to achieve her aspirations; the first depicting a reception room at the front of the property, and the second with an open plan kitchen/dining/reception area to the rear of the property. In both options she required a bathroom as her daughter only took baths
and believed that she had made it clear that she did not want a shower room. It is the evidence of the Referrer that the Registered Person produced design options that ignored her requirements. The Referrer subsequently confirmed her requirements in writing via emails on 4 and 8 January 2023 in which she reiterated her desire for an extension of 3 metres beyond the existing line.

11. The first drawing was provided by the Registered Person on 6 January 2023. The Referrer states that this design contained mistakes, in that it did not:

i. clearly show the measurement of the extension at the rear;
ii. achieve the required size as it only allowed for a small second bedroom suitable for a single bed and wardrobe;
iii. show any measurements;
iv. have the correct location/address recorded.
v. show a bathroom as required and had an entrance to the toiler/shower room within the kitchen/dining room.

12. It is believed that the incorrect location and address was due to the draft being copied and pasted from another project. The Registered Person was notified of the issues by the Referrer in an online meeting that was held on the same day.

13. A second draft of the design was produced by the Registered Person. This was provided to the Referrer on 20 January 2023. The second design still did not meet the Referrer’s brief, again showing access to the shower room from the kitchen/reception, and a shower room rather than a bathroom, both of which the Referrer had stated previously she did not want. The extension shown was still not 3 metres beyond the end of the property as requested, despite other local properties having carried out larger extensions. The drawings again also included references to areas of Walthamstow which had no relevance to the project as the property was based in Kingston.

14. The Referrer raised her concerns in an online meeting with the Registered Person on 21 January 2024 and followed this up with an email on the same day. The Registered Person responded by email on 24 January 2024 explaining why he felt the brief was not achievable in his opinion. The Referrer states that although the Registered Person had alluded to this before, specifically during the site visit on 19 December 2022 and during online meetings of 6 and 21 January 2023, he had not said to her that he would not design to her brief because he considered it to be unachievable.

15. On 24 January 2023, the Registered Person provided the Referrer with a copy of the London Design Guide. The Referrer states this was a large document, and she could not find an answer within it as to why her brief requirements could not be met. The Referrer sought advice from the planning department of her then employers, Savills, as to whether her brief was feasible. She was assured that it was and that it was compliant with guidelines.

16. On 26 January 2023, the Registered Person provided the Referrer with a third set of drawings. It is understood by the Referrer that the third design option was ‘free of charge’ as a thank you for the Referrer assisting with the Registered Person’s wedding arrangements earlier that year. These drawings still did not meet the brief regarding the extension dimensions in that the proposed extension was measured as 2885mm, as opposed to the 3000mm requested (3 the cs). The overall design of the third set of drawings was considered by the Referrer to be poor and the bathroom door CAD symbol was shown as if floating in the middle of the bathroom.

17. On 30 January 2023, the Referrer sent an email to the Registered Person providing her comments on the third design. In this email the Referrer also said, “I have sent you a WhatsApp regarding design option 2…I asked from the outset for the 3 metres extension to the rear, and plans 1 & 2 did not incorporate this important point.” The Registered Person replied on the same day stating that he will review what the Referrer has sent and respond accordingly. The Registered Person further stated “Moving forward can all future correspondence be sent via email as we do not typically respond to other formats in order to prevent any confusion as well as to keep our processing of information as streamline as possible. Please note there appears to be some confusion in regard to where the 3m boundary offset is taken from. The Registered Person went on to explain each party’s understanding as to where the three-metre line should be taken from.

18. The Registered Person submitted all three drawings for planning permission to Kingston Council. The drawings were submitted without her consent or approval. The Referrer sent a WhatsApp message to the Registered Person on 28 January 2023 and an email on 31 January 2024 to him asking why the plans had been submitted without her consent and approval. The Registered Person replied to the email on the same date stating that the project was “paused” until receipt of payment of fees.

19. The relationship between the Referrer and Registered Person subsequently broke down.

20. The Referrer submitted a formal complaint to the ARB on 29 March 2023. The Referrer also brought a claim before the County Court which ruled in favor of the Referrer. The Registered Person paid back fees and costs to the Referrer in full as required by the judgment.

21. The Referrer successfully obtained planning permission with an alternative Architect on 11 May 2023, achieving an extension of 3 metres from the back of the property as desired.

Fees

22. The Referrer was provided the Architectural Fee Proposal in which the agreed quotation for the cost of the works was a total of £1,240. However, during the course of the project, the Referrer states that the following issues arose with the fees:

i. The Referrer was charged a total of £1,455 made up of two invoices. This was in excess of the agreed fee quotation of £1,240. The Referrer notified the Registered Person of the overpayment of £215 by email on 29 January 2023.
ii. The Registered Person failed to deduct 10% as quoted to her in the Architectural Fee Proposal. The deduction was subsequently applied.
iii. The Referrer noted when paying the second invoice there was a 2% processing fee charge. On 4 January 2023, the Referrer notified the Registered Person by email that as she had paid by bank transfer and not by card, the processing fee was not applicable and that she would deduct this from the second invoice. The Registered Person agreed. The Referrer emailed the Registered Person on 29 January 2023 and mentioned the overpayment of £215. The Registered Person replied by email the following day informing the Referrer that additional fees had been incurred as a result of the digital survey and the third design option. It is the evidence of the Referrer that neither of these extra costs were agreed with her prior to the invoice being issued.

23. On 1 February 2023, the Referrer was issued a third invoice from the Registered Person for the additional fees in the sum of £210. This invoice was said to be for the third design. The invoice records “7 hours Architectural Services (Project Architect Rate) Additional Hours.” In his email of 31 January 2023, the Registered Person stated, “we cannot proceed until our outstanding payment is resolved in full.” The Referrer did not pay the invoice of £210 as she considered the first and second drawings had not met her requirements.

24. The Referrer states that given the issues regarding fees and because previous correspondence had failed to adequately address the points raised, she emailed the Registered Person on 10 February 2023 saying that it would be best if they agreed to part company. The Referrer suggested a fair payment of 50% for the Architectural Fee quote of £1,240 for the work undertaken by the Registered Person i.e. £620, and a refund of £835 to the Referrer. The Referrer considered this a fair outcome in the circumstances.

25.The Referrer sought legal advice and sent the Registered Person a pre-action letter on 25 March 2023. On 28 March 2023, the Registered Person sent the Referrer a fourth invoice, with no previous discussion, for the sum of £11,610. The invoice included the £210 from the third invoice and “Additional Hours” citing a total of 120 hours for “Architectural Services (Director Rate)” and a further 120 hours for “Architectural Services (Senior Architectural Designer Rate).” The Referrer states that she believed the fourth invoice was issued in retaliation for her having made a complaint. The Referrer did not pay the fourth invoice.

Complaints handling procedure.

26. On 17 February 2023, the Referrer asked the Registered Person, via email, for a copy of his formal complaints handling procedure. The Registered Person responded, ignoring her request and instead offered dates for an online meeting to address the ongoing issues. The Referrer made a further request via email for the complaints handling procedure on that same day and again on 24 February 2023. On each occasion, the Registered Person ignored the Referrer’s request to provide the complaints handling procedure and attempted to arrange an online meeting to discuss the issues. On 15 March 2023 the Referrer emailed the Registered Person for a fourth time requesting the complaints handling procedure. The Registered Person replied on 17 March 2023, stating that he could not proceed until fees had been paid and that the project remained on pause. Again, the Registered Person offered an online meeting. The Referrer was never provided with the complaints handling procedure.

Evidence

27. In reaching its decisions, the Committee carefully considered the following documentary evidence:

i. The Report of ARB’s Solicitor dated 23 September 2024.
ii. The Referrer’s witness statement dated 17 July 2024, and exhibits.
iii. Exhibits 1 to 43 in the ARB’s bundle.
iv. Emails between the ARB and Registered Person dated July to August 2023;
v. Registered Person’s representations and bundle dated 17 November 2023;
vi. Money Claim against Referrer’s bundle (Defence and Counterclaim) dated July 2023;
vii. Registered Person’s Claim Against Referrer Bundle (Defence and Counterclaim) dated November 2023;
viii. Registered Person’s witness statement dated 25 November 2024.

28. The Committee also heard live evidence from the Referrer and Registered Person.

Decision on Unacceptable Professional Conduct

Legal advice

29. The Committee Chair advised that whether the conduct alleged amounts to unacceptable professional conduct is a matter for the Committee’s independent judgment and there is no burden or standard of proof.

30. Unacceptable professional conduct is defined as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered person. In reaching its findings on unacceptable professional conduct, 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 unacceptable professional conduct. Architects are expected to be guided by the spirit of the Code as well as its express terms.

31. In deciding whether the facts found proved amount to unacceptable professional conduct the Committee had regard to the definition of misconduct, which is akin to unacceptable professional conduct, and which 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”. The Committee also recognises that any failing must be serious, Vranicki v Architects Registration Architect [2007] EWHC 506 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, Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). The Committee also reminded itself of the relevance of drawing a distinction between a single act and multiple acts of concern, “mere negligence does not constitute misconduct” and that “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)).

32. The Committee had regard to the following Standards from ARB’s Code of Conduct 2017:

i. Particular 1 – Standard 2.1 and/or 6.1;
ii. Particular 2 – Standard 9.2;
iii. Particular 3 – Standards 10.1 and 10.2.

33. The Registered Person accepted that his conduct at Particulars 2 and 3 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct.

Submissions – ARB

34. The Presenter, on behalf of the ARB, referred the Committee to the relevant Standards in the ARB Code 2017 (“the Code”). He submitted that unacceptable professional conduct involves a serious falling short of what is expected of a Registered Architect in the circumstances and is a matter of independent judgment for the Committee. In relation to Particular 1, the Presenter submitted that despite the Referrer’s brief being straightforward the Registered Person failed to produce a design that was in line with the Referrer’s requirements. In respect of Particular 2, the Presenter submitted that the Registered Person sent an invoice to the Referrer despite having paused the project. He submitted that the Registered Person should have sought to rectify the Referrer’s concerns, but instead his conduct was inappropriate and escalated matters. In relation to Particular 3, the Presenter submitted that on a number of occasions the Referrer requested the Registered Person’s written complaints handling procedure, but this was not provided and, as a result, the Referrer’s concerns remained unresolved by the Registered Person. The Presenter invited the Committee to find Particulars 1, 2 and 3 to amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

Submissions – Registered Person

35. Ms McMahon, on behalf of the Registered Person, submitted that in respect of Particular 1, the Registered Person accepts that he failed to produce a design in line with the Referrer’s requirements. However, he does not accept that his conduct amounts to unacceptable professional conduct. Ms McMahon said that the Committee heard oral evidence from the Referrer in relation to the discrepancies between the Referrer and Registered Person’s evidence; namely the discussions that took place during the site visit on 19 December 2022, the discussions that took place during the online meeting of 6 January 2023 and the content of the Referrer’s email and drawing of 4 January 2023. Ms McMahon submitted that on these 3 dates, the Referrer did not say to the Registered Person that she wanted to extend the property by 3 metres from the existing build line. Ms McMahon referred the Committee to the minutes of the 6 January 2023 online meeting which was sent to the Referrer on the same date. Ms McMahon stated that there is no reference to 3 metres in the meeting minutes, nor was there any reference to 3 metres in the Referrer’s email and drawing of 4 January 2023. Ms McMahon told the Committee it is correct that from 8 January 2023 the Referrer’s requirements of an extension of 3 metres beyond the existing property line, a bathroom and two double bedrooms was made clear, and this was accepted by the Registered Person in his evidence.

36. Ms McMahon submitted that whether the Registered Person’s conduct at Particular 1 amounts to unacceptable professional conduct is a narrow issue. She reminded the Committee that the online meeting with the Referrer on 6 January 2023 was the
Registered Person’s first meeting following the Christmas and New Years break. The Registered Person accepts that his second design did not meet the Referrer’s requirements, but the third design came very close to doing so with the length of the extension falling 115mm short of 3 metres, an aspect that was only picked up by the Referrer at a later date. Ms McMahon referred to the cases of Spencer v General Osteopathic Council and R (Calhaem) v General Medical Council and submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct was not a serious falling short. Ms McMahon submitted that, at most, the Registered Person’s conduct was negligent and a lapse but it was not of a degree that crossed the threshold of misconduct and attracted a degree of opprobrium.

Findings on Unacceptable Professional Conduct

37. The Committee took into account all the evidence before it together with the submissions from the Presenter and Ms McMahon.

Particular 1

38. In her evidence to the Committee, the Referrer said she discussed her design brief requirements with the Registered Person at the site meeting on 19 December 2022. She reiterated these requirements in her email to the Registered Person on 4 January 2023 in a “language that he understood.” The Committee noted that the first communication following the site visit was a WhatsApp message sent by the Referrer to the Registered Person the following day on 20 December 2022 in which the Referrer said that she was looking forward to seeing “all the ideas” the Registered Person had put forward and “the third idea is for a wraparound extension.”

39. The Committee considered that up to and including 6 January 2023, when the first design was sent to the Referrer and an online meeting was held with the Registered Person to discuss the first design; the Referrer’s design requirements for a double bedroom and a 3 metre extension beyond the existing property line was not explicitly noted in the documentary evidence before it. There was reference to a bathroom in the Referrer’s email of 4 January 2023, but there was no specific reference to a bath as opposed to a shower. However, by 8 January 2023, the Referrer’s design requirements were explicit and documented and the Registered Person accepted in his evidence that he was aware of the design requirements from this date.

40. The Registered Person’s second design on 20 January 2023 failed to extend the requested 3 metres from the rear of the property and showed a shower and not a bath. The third design produced on 26 January 2023 corrected the previous errors but the proposed extension was 115mm short of the 3 metres requested by the Referrer.

41. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s second and third designs were not optimal and did not meet the requirements of the Referrer’s brief as communicated on 8, 20, and 21 January 2023. The second design also still included an incorrect reference to areas in Walthamstow which had also been included in the first design and had no relevance to the project. The Committee determined that the Registered Person’s conduct in relation to the production of both designs was careless and in breach of Standard 6.1 of the Code which states that an Architect is expected to carry out their work with skill and care and in accordance with the terms of their engagement. However, the Committee recognised that a higher degree of culpability than mere negligence or carelessness was required for a finding of unacceptable professional conduct. The Committee bore this in mind and concluded that whilst the Registered Person’s conduct represented a breach of Standard 6.1 of the Code, when viewed in context and in the circumstances, it was not sufficiently serious so as to attract a degree of opprobrium and therefore did not amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The Committee also concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct was not a breach of Standard 2.1.

Particular 2

42. The Committee noted that errors had been made and accepted by the Registered Person in relation to the first two invoices. Firstly, there was a 2% fee for processing card payments noted on the invoices, yet the Referrer made payment via bank transfer. Secondly, the 10% discount quoted in the Architectural Fee Proposal had not been applied to the costs on the invoices. The Referrer raised these errors with the Registered Person and they were corrected. However, when the Referrer requested her refund of the overpayment of £215, she was provided a third invoice in the sum of £237 for the production of a third design on 26 January 2023 and the production of digital maps.

43. The Committee considered that the Registered Person’s third design did not constitute a separate design but was in fact a correction of the errors in the second design option produced on 20 January 2023. These errors were brought to the Registered Person’s attention by the Referrer in an online meeting of the same date. The Referrer’s brief requirements did not change between 8 January 2023 and 26 January 2023 when the third design was produced by the Registered Person. The Committee therefore concluded that an additional cost of the third design was unjustified. The Committee noted that the Architectural Fee Proposal states that the fee quotation assumed that a full digital survey would be available to ensure site accuracy before commencement of work. In the Committee’s view however, the costs of the third design and digital maps were only brought to the Referrer’s attention when she asked the Registered Person for the return of the overpayment of £215.

44. The Registered Person served on the Referrer a fourth invoice for £11,610 in fees for services that were not previously discussed or agreed with her. In the Committee’s view, the production of the fourth invoice for an excessively high amount was an intentional act by the Registered Person to cause the Referrer distress. In her witness statement the Referrer said that she felt the “Registered Person was now increasing the pressure techniques of bullying and intimidation.” She states that once the fourth invoice was issued, her insurance company advised that they could no longer assist with her case due to the amount exceeding their threshold. The Referrer was then left to produce a case for the small claims court and engage with the ARB independently and without legal advice.

45. In his evidence before the Committee the Registered Person failed to justify his fourth invoice and could not explain how his fees were calculated. He told the Committee that his hourly rate had increased after 2022 but did not provide evidence of this increase. It was not clear from the Registered Person’s evidence whether the total of 240 “additional hours” of work referred to in the fourth invoice were undertaken after the site visit of 19 December 2022 and up to 31 January 2023 which was a period of approximately six weeks and included the Christmas and New Year bank holidays, or after 31 January 2023, the point at which the Referrer was informed that the project was “paused”. At no point during either of these periods did the Registered Person inform the Referrer of the additional hours and costs being incurred.

46. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s failure to keep the Referrer adequately informed of matters affecting the cost of her project was a serious failure on his part and a breach of Standard 6.3 of the Code which expects an Architect to keep their client informed of the progress of work they undertake on their behalf and of any issue which may significantly affect its quality or cost. The public would also expect any Architect to provide an explanation to their client of matters affecting the cost of their project, give updates as appropriate and most importantly obtain their client’s consent before incurring costs and/or fees.

47. The Committee considered the fees in the fourth invoice were excessive, amounting to almost 10 times the figure agreed at the outset. It heard no evidence to support the assertion that the 240 hours of additional work being claimed in the fourth invoice had actually taken place and considered that the invoice was primarily intended to cause distress to the Referrer. This represented a serious departure from the standards and behaviour expected of a registered Architect as set out in Standard 9.2 of the Code and adversely impacted on the reputation of the profession and in particular the Referrer’s view of the professionalism of the Registered Person.

48. For the reasons set out above, the Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct at Particular 2 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct.

Particular 3

49. The Registered Person agreed that the Referrer had on four occasions requested the complaints handling procedure via email. He responded to each request with the suggestion of an online meeting. Although the Registered Person told the Committee he wanted to resolve matters informally and amicably in view of sensitivities, particularly the Referrer’s long standing friendship with his wife; in the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s conduct in not supplying the complaints handling procedure was to pressurise the Referrer to engage in a verbal dialogue despite having informed the Referrer on 30 January 2023 that correspondence should be via email to “prevent any confusion”.

50. The Registered Person said that he provided a link to the complaints handling procedure in an email to the Referrer on 19 December 2023 although he accepted that this was provided “too late in order to salvage the relationship and prevent the civil claim and complaint to the ARB.” The Committee was not provided with a copy of this email by the Registered Person nor has a copy of the complaints handling procedure been provided by the Registered Person in the course of his ARB proceedings. In any event, the Committee considered that even if the Registered Person had sent the complaints handling procedure to the Referrer in December 2023, it was sent nine months after the Referrer’s repeated requests and the submission of her complaint to the ARB.

51. The Committee considered that the Referrer was entitled to a copy of the complaints handling procedure and the Registered Person had a professional obligation to provide her with a copy in a timely manner. His failure to do so was serious as it left the Referrer without a mechanism for raising a complaint and potentially resolving issues directly with the Registered Person. The Referrer stated that “at every point the Registered Person could have rectified the situation, he chose to escalate and has not backed down. It has been very difficult.”

52. The Committee had regard to Standard 10.2 of the Code:

Complaints should be handled courteously and promptly at every stage, and as far as practicable in accordance with the following time scales:

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.

53. The public would expect a complaint handling procedure to be provided by an Architect in accordance with the Code. The Registered Person’s failing was not inadvertent, or fleeting given the numerous requests made by the Referrer. His failure at Particular 3 to comply with his professional obligations represents conduct falling substantially below the Standard expected of a registered Architect and is properly categorised as unacceptable professional conduct.

Conclusion on Unacceptable Professional Conduct

54. The charge of unacceptable professional conduct is therefore found proved in relation to Particulars 2 and 3.

Decision on Sanction

55. The Committee went on to consider whether a disciplinary order was necessary.

Submissions – ARB

56. The Presenter set out the ARB’s submissions in relation to sanction and drew the Committee’s attention to the ARB’s Sanctions Guidance (2022). He reminded the Committee of the purpose of sanction, the disciplinary orders available and how the Committee should approach its consideration of what sanction, if any, to impose. The Presenter said the Committee will consider any aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

57. The Presenter submitted that the Registered Person made admissions in the notice of hearing acknowledgement form dated November 2024 and in his witness statement. However, the Registered Person had initially pursued a defence and counter claim for loss of earnings and unjust enrichment in response to the Referrer’s claim in the small claims court. The Presenter stated that the Registered Person issued the Referrer with an invoice for excessive fees. The Presenter submitted that the Committee will consider whether, having regard to all of the circumstances, the Registered Person has insight and has fully and properly acknowledged his failings, and whether he has considered the impact of his conduct on others.

Submissions – Registered Person

58. Ms McMahon submitted that this was a sad case that arose because of the Registered Person’s failings in relation to his wife’s best friend’s property. The events have placed a severe strain on their relationship and there has been a falling out. Ms McMahon submitted that the Registered Person admitted all the factual particulars and the charge of unacceptable professional conduct in relation to Particulars 2 and 3 which the Committee found proved. There was no attempt by the Registered Person to contest key points of the allegation.

59. Ms McMahon submitted that the Registered Person was initially more combative in his response to the County Court proceedings however he lost, and an order was made for the repayment of the Referrer’s fees, plus damages, interests and costs which the Registered Person complied with. She submitted that the solicitor’s letter following those proceedings was sent to the Referrer under protest. The Registered Person did not appeal the County Court judgement and order. The Referrer has therefore been fully compensated for the Registered Person’s professional failings.

60. Ms McMahon submitted that the Committee’s decision will be published on the ARB’s website and this in and of itself will be a considerable punishment for the Registered Person. She submitted that the findings relate to a single client over a short period of time. The Registered Person has learned lessons. Insight and remediation are an evolving process; however, the Registered Person accepted that his conduct was wrong, he has apologised and was genuinely sorry, and his conduct would not be repeated.

61. Ms McMahon submitted that a financial penalty was a fair, appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. She told the Committee that the Registered Person employs eight people in his company and their continued employment is dependent upon the Registered Person’s registration and employment as an Architect. The Registered Person is the sole breadwinner in his family, he has one young child with a second child due next year. Ms McMahon stated that the Committee will consider the next, more severe sanction, but submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct does not require a suspension order for the reasons set out above and because a suspension order will significantly impact the Registered Person’s family and his employment. Ms McMahon submitted that in all the circumstances of this case the proportionate disciplinary order is a financial penalty.

62. The Committee considered whether to impose a sanction, and if so, which one. The Committee had regard to the public interest, which included the need to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the profession and the ARB, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behavior. The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions made during the course of the hearing. It heard and accepted the advice of the Committee Chair in relation to sanction which is a matter of record. It bore in mind that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. It took into account the Registered Person’s interests, ARB’s Sanctions Guidance (2022) and the need to act proportionately. It identified the aggravating and mitigating factors set out below and exercised its own independent judgement.

63. The Committee identified the following aggravating factors:

i. The Registered Person’s conduct following the Referrer’s request for the overpayment of fees was deliberate and serious. The behaviour could not be considered as an isolated or “one off” lapse of judgment by the Registered Person.
ii. The Registered Person’s conduct was repeated. Two invoices were issued that could not be fully justified. At no point did the Registered Person withdraw the third and fourth invoices. The Registered Person also ignored the Referrer’s request on four occasions to provide her with his complaints handling procedure.
iii. The Registered Person escalated matters deliberately leaving the Referrer with no option but to issue a claim in the County Court to recover her fees and submit a complaint to the ARB.
iv. The Registered Person’s insight into the seriousness of his failings, though developing, was clear in his witness statement but appeared to be somewhat limited in his oral evidence. The Registered Person appeared to row back from his witness statement; for example, he said the fourth invoice was “sent to the Referrer out of frustration” whereas in his oral evidence to the Committee, he said that he “was completely ill-informed” when he sent the fourth invoice and that “it was just my rationale in regard to what I had been spending and finding out by reviews what had gone on.” Although he was apologetic for having sent the invoice, the Registered Person was unable to explain in his evidence what work had actually been undertaken to justify the excessive fees being claimed from the Referrer.
v. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person had not fully acknowledged his failings, and he failed to realise how his conduct had impacted the Referrer. For example, he told the Committee that the Referrer had “created a narrative” and that she was “talking at us in her emails.” The Registered Person’s failings have had a significant impact on the Referrer as set out in paragraphs 44 and 51 above.

64. The Committee identified the following mitigating factors:

i. The Registered Person’s conduct related to one client and the conduct took place over a short period of time in an otherwise unblemished career.
ii. The Registered Person had fully engaged with the ARB proceedings.
iii. The Registered Person said in his witness statement and in oral evidence to the Committee that he had taken remedial steps in relation to informing clients about the costs of a project and complaints handling and that these had been implemented in his practice.
iv. The Registered Person demonstrated some insight into his conduct. He understood that in hindsight his conduct in relation to Particulars 2 and 3 could have been perceived negatively by the Referrer and the Architectural profession.
v. The Registered Person apologised for his conduct.

65. The Committee was mindful of its role to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Committee reminded itself as to its findings regarding the seriousness of the Registered Person’s failings. Having done so, the Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct was sufficiently serious for it to require the imposition of a sanction and has considered sanctions in ascending order of severity.

66. Taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and looking at all the facts in the round, the Committee considered the Registered Person’s conduct was unlikely to be repeated. The Registered Person had demonstrated some appreciation of his failings and told the Committee he had remediated his conduct, and his conduct would not be repeated. The Committee noted that there was no evidence before it in relation to the practical steps undertaken by the Registered Person, such as a copy of the contract he sends to his clients which contain clauses that specify how clients will be informed of cost-related issues, and a copy of his written complaints procedure which he told us now includes references to timeliness and resolution options. However, in light of his appearance before the Committee, it was satisfied that the Registered Person would ensure that in future clients are fully informed regarding costs and provided information at the outset regarding his complaints handling procedure.

67. The Committee considered that the Registered Person’s conduct was serious to the extent that his failings diminished both his reputation, and that of the profession generally and exposed the Referrer to substantial inconvenience and personal distress. The public would expect documentation regarding complaint handling to be provided by an Architect in accordance with the relevant standard in the Code. The public would also expect any Architect to provide updates to a client regarding the costs of their project as appropriate and most importantly obtain their client’s consent before incurring costs and/or fees. There is also an expectation that an Architect should not submit an invoice to a client for an excessive amount which has not been justified. The Committee took into consideration that the Registered Person had breached aspects of three separate Standards of the Code, namely Standards 6.1, 6.3, 9.2 and 10.2.

68. The Committee first considered whether to impose a reprimand. However, having considered the Sanctions Guidance and the factors detailed above, the Committee concluded that the nature of the unacceptable professional conduct found proved was too serious for such a sanction to be considered appropriate and proportionate. The Committee did not consider the Registered Person’s conduct was at the lower end of the scale. His conduct was deliberate, repeated and involved a serious falling short.

69. The Committee then considered whether to impose a penalty order and concluded that such a sanction was appropriate and proportionate to protect the public and the reputation of the Architect profession given the seriousness of the unacceptable professional conduct found proved and the Registered Person’s developing insight. The Committee had regard to the submissions made by Ms McMahon that the Registered Person was in a position financially to pay a penalty order if imposed by the Committee. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that given the seriousness of this case, it would be appropriate and proportionate to impose a penalty order for the maximum amount permitted.

70. The Committee had regard to the impact of such a sanction on the Registered Person but considered that the public interest outweighed the Registered Person’s interests.

The Committee considered whether to impose a suspension order, but given the suitability of a penalty order, the Committee concluded that such a sanction would be disproportionate and unduly punitive.

71. The Committee therefore imposed a penalty order in the sum of £2500 to be paid within 28 days of the date of this decision.

72. That concludes this determination.