A+ A-
Select Page

Download this page as a PDF

Mr Aleksandrs Kremers

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

ALEKSANDRS KREMERS (089268H)

 

Margaret Obi (Chair)
Robert Dearman (PCC Architect Member)
Jules Griffiths (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

 

 

In respect of the charges against ALEKSANDRS KREMERS (“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 to the hearing of the Charge.

The Architects Registration Board 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

 

An allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct has been brought by the ARB against the Registered Person. The ARB has particularised the allegation as follows:

 1) The Registered Person was temporarily suspended from the Latvian Association of Architects (‘LAA’) on or around 9 December 2020;

 2) The Registered Person was substantively suspended from the LAA on or around 1 March 2022;

 3) The Registered Person failed to notify the ARB of his regulatory suspension by the LAA at particular 1, in contravention of Standard 9.2 of the Architects Code.

 

Statements of Agreed Facts

 

  1. The Registered Person is a registered architect at Artalex Limited. He also practices in Latvia and is registered with the Latvian Association of Architects. The Latvian Association of Architects Certification Centre (‘LAA CC’) is responsible for the assessment of the competence of certified architects and supervision of their practice in Latvia.

 

  1. On 2 February 2021 the ARB received correspondence from the LAACC advising that the Registered Person had been suspended on 9 December 2020 due to a failure to provide information requested by them as part of an on-going disciplinary investigation. Prior to receiving this correspondence, the ARB was unaware that the Registered Person had been suspended by the LAA CC.

 

  1. The ARB sought further information from the LAA CC. The LAA CC subsequently advised that disciplinary procedures had been initiated against the Registered Person in relation to a complaint concerning negligent and incomplete design documentation. The LAA CC received a complaint in July 2020 from a construction expert in Latvia. The Registered Person was the construction project manager responsible for the reconstruction project. On 29 September 2020, the LAA CC requested that the Registered Person provide a written explanation within 10 working days providing details as to his role in the project development and the project development conditions. He was also advised that if he failed to provide the information the LAA CC had the right to suspend his certificate of registration.

 

  1. On 30 September 2020, the Registered Person wrote to his client on the project asking why information had been submitted to the construction expert to review when the design work was on-going. He the responded to the LAA CC on 8 October 2020 providing comments on the complaint.

 

  1. The LAA CC wrote to the Registered Person on 13 October 2020 noting that information about the development and management documentation, which they had previously requested, remained outstanding. The Registered Person was requested to provide this within 5 working days. In response the Registered Person provided a letter explaining part of the project documentation was placed in Google Drive and regularly updated but that meetings took place in person and remotely, with no minutes prepared at the request of the customer.

 

  1. The LAA CC requested further evidence that the Registered Person had carried out his duties as head of the construction project. The Registered Person responded denying any wrongdoing but said he could not provide evidence of any meeting minutes or emails on the basis the material was confidential.

 

  1. On 9 December 2020, the LAA CC advised the Registered Person they were initiating a disciplinary case, and he was temporarily suspended. The Registered Person was informed of the decision. He did not notify the ARB of this, and the ARB only became aware of the suspension on 2 February 2021 when contacted by the LAA CC.

 

  1. The ARB wrote to the Registered Person on 1 March 2021 advising him they had been contacted by the LAA CC and seeking further information about the disciplinary procedure. In an exchange of further correspondence with the Registered Person’s representative, the matter was described as a misunderstanding.

 

  1. The disciplinary investigation by the LAA CC then took place but in December 2021 the Registered Person wrote to the Republic of Latvia’s Ministry of Economics, seeking a review of the LAA CC’s decision to suspend his certificate. He included in his submission his frustration that the LAA CC had not dealt with his disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding the fact his right to practice had been suspended for more than a year.

 

  1. The Deputy State Secretary responded directing that the LAA CC had one calendar month to decide on the renewal of the Registered Person’s certificate or the imposition of a penalty.

 

  1. On 18 February 2022, the Council of the LAA CC approved the suspension of the Registered Person’s certificate for a period of 3 years. On 1 March 2022, the LAA CC issued their determination which concluded:

 

“Alexsandrs Kremers, who in the present case has the burden of proof, pointed out his participation in the construction project but did not provide evidence from LAA CC, which would demonstrate his role as construction project manager in the development of the construction project (e.g. minutes of meetings, e-mail correspondence etc). Failure to submit evidence was explained by the fact that the meeting with the customer took place face-to-face remotely- using video calls and “at the customers’ request, the recording of conversations was not carried out”, as well as – due to prohibition to disclose information – “According to the terms of the agreement between the parties involved in the design process, any information included in the minutes of the meetings or emails is considered confidential, unfortunately I do not have the right to disclose it to third party.”

 

“Aleksandrs Kremers, who has the burden of proof in this situation, has not ensured the submission of evidence about the fulfilment of the duties of the construction project manager…thus the information at the disposal of the LAA CC clearly shows that Aleksandrs Kremers himself did not control, direct or directly execute the works I certain objects in accordance with the regulations, for which he signed as the responsible construction specialist.

 

  1. The LAA CC concluded that the Registered Person’s certificate be suspended for a period of 3 years which would incorporate the period of his temporary suspension from 9 December 2020 to 28 February 20922. The LAA CC notified the ARB of this on 10 March 2022.

 

 

Admissions

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that he was temporarily suspended from the LA CC on or around 9 December 2020. He also accepts that he was substantively suspended from the LAA CC on or around 1 March 2022. The Registered Person was suspended by his regulatory body in another jurisdiction; the decision to suspend the Registered Person’s certificate of practice is prima facie evidence of findings in respect of the Registered Person’s actions when practicing as an architect in Latvia.

 

  1. The Registered Person accepted that he failed to notify the ARB of his regulatory suspension by the LAA CC on 9 December 2020 in contravention of Standard 9.2 of the Architect’s Code. The ARB notes that by the time of the substantive investigation in 2022, the ARB was aware of the on-going LAA CC investigation. The Registered Person accepts that he should have reported his temporary suspension to the ARB on 9 December 2020 and the failure to do so was a breach of Standard 9.2 of the Code.

 

Statement of Unacceptable professional Conduct

 

  1. In light of the admission above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct amounts to UPC.

 

  1. In respect of the temporary and substantive suspensions by the LAA CC, the Registered Person accepts that he was suspended by the Latvian Regulator following a complaint raised. The Registered Person accepts that the act of suspending a registered individual has the ability to bring the profession into disrepute in the UK. The Registered Person accepts that the suspensions call into question the Registered Person’s practice as an architect and there is potential for such a decision to have a negative impact on the perception of the profession of architects.

 

  1. Standard 9.2 of the Code expects an architect to inform the ARB of matters that have the potential to bring themselves or the profession into disrepute. The Registered Person accepts that his failure to notify the ARB od his temporary suspension within 28 days had the potential to reflect badly on the profession. He accepts that he ought to have been familiar with the requirements of the ARB Code and as a registered professional he had an obligation to comply with those requirements. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to declare material information to his professional regulator in the UK.

 

Disciplinary Order

 

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

 

  1. In all the circumstances, the Registered Person agrees to a disciplinary order of £2,500.

 

  1. The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has more recently engaged with the ARB and has admitted the factual particulars. He has also admitted that those matters 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.

 

  1. The ARB has considered whether a suspension order would be appropriate in this case. However, on balance it considers that a penalty order is sufficient to address the public interest and uphold public confidence in the profession.

 

  1. In the light of the admission and the low risk of repetition, the parties agree that a financial penalty order of £2,500 is an appropriate and proportionate order to impose.