A+ A-
Select Page

Download this page as a PDF

Mr Alaba Albert Adedimeji Ogunsanya

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

ALABA ALBERT ADEDIMEJI OGUNSANYA (069977B)

———-

Martin Winter (Chair)

Robert Dearman (PCC Architect Member)

Rachel Childs (PCC Lay Member)

———–

In respect of the charge against Alaba Albert Adedimeji Ogunsanya (069977B) (“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; and

 

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

 

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

 

The Allegation:

 

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

 

(1) The Registered Person failed to provide adequate Terms of Engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code.

 

(2) The Registered Person, between December 2019 and March 2020, failed to keep the Referrer informed of the progress of work, contrary to Standard 6 of the Architects Code.

 

(3) The Registered Person failed to provide an adequate service in relation to Planning, contrary to Standard 2 and/or 6 of the Architects Code.

 

(4) The Registered Person failed to adequately and appropriately respond to a complaint, contrary to Standard 10 of the Architects Code.

 

Statement of agreed facts:

 

  1. The Registered Person is an Architect at Zyntax Chartered Architects.

 

  1. Mr Mukhtiar Dev (“the Referrer”) is a building contractor. His company, S. Dev, owned a property in Slough which was developed into offices and rented out to local businesses. In 2018, the Referrer approached the Registered Person, via an estate agent (Mr J), with a view to developing the building into residential properties.

 

 

  1. The Registered Person sent Terms of Engagement to Mr J on 18 October 2018, but no agreement was ever made directly with the Referrer. The only document received by the Referrer was a letter from Mr J dated 26 October 2018 confirming that he was to act as an agent for the project when he came to sell the flats.

 

  1. On 3 December 2018, the Registered Person submitted a Prior Approval Notice to Slough Council. This notice was to regularise the change of use under the permitted development legislation in place at the time, for converting offices into 12 residential properties without having to apply for full planning permission.

 

  1. There was an existing planning permission from 1986 which limited the use of the site to offices by way of a restrictive Condition. Information about the existing planning permission and restrictive Condition on the property was available on websites run by Slough Council which was accessible to the Registered Person, but he did not identify the Condition.

 

  1. The Prior Approval Notice was withdrawn on 23 January 2019 due to the restrictive Condition on the property, limiting the use of the site to offices, being brought to the attention of the Registered Person.

 

  1. The Registered Person submitted an application to extend the front and rear of the building on 7 December 2018 and the Referrer paid the planning fee on 25 January 2019. This was also withdrawn.

 

  1. A further application was submitted to vary or remove the restrictive Condition relating to the sole use of the premises as offices, but this too was unacceptable to the planners as it would give unfettered office use which could be changed by permitted development.

 

  1. In March 2019, the Registered Person informed the Referrer that the Council had rejected the application in February 2019 as the permitted development issue had not been resolved.

 

 

  1. An Outline Planning Application was submitted in May 2019 for eight flats and a house. The application was rejected on 2 August 2019.

 

  1. Following feedback from the planners, a revised Outline Planning Application was submitted on 21 August 2019 for a reduced eight flats, with a different internal layout. This application was not validated until December 2019 when revised drawings were issued.

 

  1. Throughout December 2019, the Referrer had no further update from the Registered Person as to progress of the application. The Referrer chased the Registered Person for an update on 19 December 2019, 21 January 2020 and 5 February 2020 in an attempt to obtain further information and did not receive any response.

 

  1. As a result, in March 2020, the Referrer contacted the local planning officer directly for information on the application. Slough Council responded on 10 March 2020, advising that the Council intended to refuse the planning application and that this information had been communicated to the Registered Person.

 

  1. Slough Council confirmed their refusal by email on 4 May 2020.

 

  1. The Registered Person sent revised drawings for a six flat scheme to the Referrer on 15 December 2020.

 

  1. On 29 January 2021, the Referrer was copied into an email from Slough Council, explaining that the last planning application had been withdrawn.

 

  1. A revised full planning application for six flats was registered on 20 July 2021. The planner responded with comments on 2 August 2021, which the Registered Person forwarded to the Referrer on 5 August 2021, stating that he would not be addressing the comments until payment was made on his outstanding invoice.
  2. Following a breakdown in the relationship between the Registered Person and the Referrer, on 29 March 2022 the Referrer wrote a detailed letter of complaint to the Registered Person.

 

  1. He did not receive a response until 2 May 2022, in which the Registered Person did not address the issues raised in the complaint, referring to it as “twaddle” and stating he was too busy to respond.

 

  1. The Referrer made a complaint to ARB on 28 July 2022.

 

Admissions:

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that he did not provide adequate written terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code. He accepts that he had a professional obligation to provide his client with full and adequate terms of engagement that complied with the requirements of the Code. In this respect, he accepts that he should, at the outset, have clarified in writing, the respective roles of Mr J and the Referrer. He also accepts that he ought to have considered this issue again upon Mr J’s involvement largely ceasing in or around May 2019.

 

  1. The Registered Person further accepts that the letter of engagement and accompanying Terms and Conditions to Mr J did not include:

a. who would be responsible for what;

b. any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the Registered Person, Mr J and the Referrer;

c. the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement by the Referrer

  1. The Registered Person accepts that the letter sent on 18 October 2018 did not meet the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code for these reasons.

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that he had a duty to inform the Referrer of the progress of the applications, including either that there was no progress when asked for an update, or that the applications were going to be refused and his intention was therefore to withdraw them.

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that Standard 6.3 of the Code imposes a duty on him to adequately respond to correspondence and to provide progress on work undertaken on the Referrer’s behalf. He accepts that as a professional, he should have been aware that the Referrer would expect him to adequately respond to correspondence throughout the duration of his appointment.

 

  1. He accepts that by not replying in a timely manner, or at all, over the period December 2019 to March 2020, he did not meet the requirements of Standard 6.3 of the Code.

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that in relation to his failure to conduct the relevant searches on the existing planning permission, this led to an application being submitted which had no prospects of success. In doing so he breached Standards 2 and 6 of the Code which requires that architects carry out their work competently and with skill and care.

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to respond adequately and appropriately to the Referrer’s complaint, by failing to engage with the substance of the complaint and by referring to it as “twaddle”. The Registered Person accepts that Standard 10 of the Architects Code requires that complaints “be handled courteously and promptly at every stage”, and that his response of 2 May 2022 did not meet the requirements of the Code as a result.

 

  1. Furthermore, the Registered Person accepts that he did not acknowledge receipt of the complaint within ten working days, nor did he respond to the issues raised within 30 days. He therefore accepts that under Standard 10 of the Architects Code, he did not handle the Referrer’s complaint courteously and promptly at every stage.

 

Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct

 

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

 

  1. In respect of Standard 4.4, setting out compliant terms of engagement in writing is essential for both the architect and the client to understand their respective rights, responsibilities and obligations. It is important that a client is fully aware of their rights when engaging an architect. A failure to provide adequate terms is serious because, as in this case, in the absence of clear terms, when a dispute arose it became more difficult to resolve. The terms of the Code are clear and the Registered Person has a duty, as a registered architect, to be aware of and adhere to the Code.

 

  1. In respect of Standard 6.3, keeping clients aware of the progress of work undertaken is important for professional trust as well as allowing clients to make informed decisions about their project. The Registered Person’s failure to provide updates and respond to the Referrer in a timely manner was a breach of Standard 6 of the Code.

 

  1. In respect of Standard 10, responding to complaints in a courteous and prompt fashion maintains trust and confidence in the profession, and allows clients to try and resolve disputes without recourse to regulatory or legal avenues.

 

Disciplinary Order:

 

  1. 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 penalty order of £2,500.

 

  1. 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.

 

 

  1. The admitted allegation has the potential to diminish both the Registered Person’s reputation and that of the profession generally and therefore the parties agree that the Registered Person’s conduct is sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order. In light of the admissions, the parties agree that a penalty order of £2,500 is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.