A+ A-
Select Page

Download this page as a PDF

Mr Benson Harold William Themuka

              THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

BENSON HAROLD WILLIAM THEMUKA (059634E)

———-

Martin Winter (Chair)

Deborah Kirk (PCC Architect Member)

Jules Griffiths (PCC Lay Member)

———–

In respect of the charges against Benson Harold William Themuka (059634E) (“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:

 

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

 

(1) The Registered Person did not provide adequate terms of engagement contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code.

 

Statement of agreed facts:

 

  1. The Registered Person is registered with ARB and sole trader of his practice, Themack Architects. He has been registered with the ARB since 1994.

 

  1. In 2016, Michael Perry (“the Referrer”) approached the Registered Person with a view to instructing him to provide architectural services in relation to the design of a loft conversion to his home, in Upper Caldecote (“the Property”). This included the submission of a planning application and a building regulations application.

 

  1. The Registered Person provided his terms of engagement in an email sent on 1 February 2017. The terms of engagement set out the scope of services as follows:

 

(i) Stage 1 – Preparation and outline proposals (£750)

(ii) Stage 2 – Submission of Planning application (£850)

(iii) Stage 3 – Developed Design (Building Control) (£950)

(iv) Stage 4 – Technical/Detail Design (production of construction drawings) (fees to be confirmed)

(v) Stage 5 – Tender documents (fees to be confirmed)

 

  1. The Referrer says that he was not offered any further information regarding the Registered Person’s terms of engagement beyond those set out in the email of 1 February 2017. Nor did the Registered Person provide any further oral explanation of his terms, beyond this email. The Referrer instructed the Registered Person in relation to Stages 1 – 3, with a view to revisiting whether he was required for subsequent stages at a later date.

 

  1. On 9 December 2018, the Registered Person submitted a planning application to Bedfordshire Council (“the Council”). The application sought permission for the demolition of the existing garage and for the structure to be rebuilt incorporating a rear ground and first floor extension. Planning permission was granted on 7 March 2019. The Registered Person was subsequently instructed to prepare a Building Regulations Application which was submitted on 31 January 2020.

 

  1. The next step on the project was the construction phase. The parties do not agree as to whether the Registered Person was appointed, either formally or informally, to assist with this phase. On 23 July 2021, the Referrer and Registered Person met and the Referrer raised a number of issues which had arisen during the construction phase. Thereafter the Registered Person provided drawings to be shared with the Contractor with a view to resolving the issues.

 

  1. The Referrer made a complaint to ARB on 1 December 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 (2017).

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that he had a professional obligation to provide his client with full and adequate terms of engagement that complied with the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice (2017). The Registered Person accepts that the email sent on 1 February 2017 did not meet the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code as it did not adequately set out any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties, did not provide details of provision for suspension/termination of the agreement, details of insurance, the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution Schemes, that the Registered Person had a complaints-handling procedure available upon request and confirmation that the Registered Person is registered with ARB and subject to the Code. The Registered Person accepts that all of this information ought to have been provided at the outset in writing in accordance with the requirements of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice (2017).

 

 

Statement as to unacceptable professional conduct

 

  1. In light of the admission above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct 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. 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. The Registered Person accepts that it was necessary for him to provide adequate written terms of engagement for the project, as required under standard 4.4 of the Architects Code. A failure to provide adequate terms is serious because, as in this case, it can lead to the potential for misunderstanding and confusion about important matters such as the Registered Person’s responsibilities on the project. The Registered Person accepts that without adequate written terms of engagement, it can be difficult to resolve matters without clarity as to the important matters set out in the Code.

 

 

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:

 

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

 

  1. The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has engaged in the regulatory process and has admitted the factual allegation. He has also admitted that this amounts 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 and low risk of repetition, the parties agree that a reprimand is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.