Mr Cesare Samarani

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

CESARE SAMARANI
(097790J)

Held as a virtual hearing on:

14-17 April 2026

_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Legally Qualified Chair)
Stuart Carr (PCC Architect Member)
Paul Grant (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

In this case, the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) is represented by Ms Rachel Birks (‘the Presenter’) instructed by Ward Hadaway.

Mr Cesare Samarani (the ‘Registered Person’) has attended this hearing and was not legally represented.

Preliminary issue(s)

Application to Admit Late Evidence

1. At the outset of the first day of the hearing the Presenter applied to admit supplementary statements provided by the witness Alex Hindley (AH). AH is an employee of ARB and provided evidence relating to the use of the Registered Person’s ARB registration number on the website belonging to Bluelime Planning Consultancy Limited (the Company). His supplementary statements and associated exhibits fell outside of the usual period for service as they were not included with the notice of hearing in accordance with the PCC Rules.

2. The Registered Person did not object to the admission of this evidence and the Chair provided the Committee with guidance relating to the ability to admit any evidence that the Committee considers fair and relevant to the case. The Committee concluded that the evidence was relevant and its lateness was explicable as it was designed to provide the Committee, and the parties, with an update as to the current state of evidence. Accordingly, the Committee found that its admission was fair and permitted the admission of this evidence in accordance with PCC Rules 19 and 20.

Allegation

3. The Registered Person faces an allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct (“UPC”) in that:

1) The Architect failed to provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code.

2) The Architect allowed the misuse of his ARB registration number in a manner inconsistent with his professional obligations, which was:
a) dishonest and/or
b) lacked integrity.

4. In doing so, it is alleged that the Registered Person acted in breach of Standards 4.4 and 1.1 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice2017 (“the Code”).

5. On the allegation being read, the Registered Person denied all Particulars.

Background

6. Tom Liddle (“the Referrer”), and his partner sought an architect in October 2022 to assist with a project to extend and improve their home. He was contacted by Mr AC of Bluelime Planning Consultancy Limited (“the Company”) and a meeting took place after which the Referrer was introduced to the Registered Person who he assumed was an assistant to AC.

7. The Referrer was provided with a terms of engagement document from the Company that was signed by AC and beneath AC’s signature appeared the words “Architects Registration Board” and “Registration Number 097790J”. The Referrer assumed that the number belonged to the Company or AC and was unaware that it was the personal ARB registration number of the Registered Person.

8. The Referrer was aware that the Registered Person was not based in the UK and their only contact was via video link meetings. AC conducted all site visits and the Referrer asserts that AC gave every impression that he was the lead architect for the project.

9. In late 2023 the Referrer began to have concerns with the quality of the building work on the project. Further concerns were raised through the local council regarding the appearance of the house not conforming to the approved plans. In March 2024, the Referrer reviewed earlier emails and discovered that the registration number being used in emails from AC actually related to the Registered Person. The Referrer noted that some of the emails sent by AC had been copied to the Registered Person and so the misuse of the number would have been apparent to him.

10. Furthermore, the Referrer asserted that he could recall that he had referred to AC as the “architect” during video calls in which the Registered Person was present. The Referrer asserted that the Registered Person did nothing to correct his misunderstanding as to AC’s status as an architect.

11. The Referrer reported that he had incurred an estimated £20,000 to £30,000 in costs to rectify issues with defective building work provided by the Company. In oral evidence this figure was updated and increased to £70,000. The Referrer stated that he would not have instructed the Company to carry out the work on his project had he known that AC was not the architect.

12. The Referrer made a formal complaint to ARB in November 2024. Following investigations by ARB, the Registered Person responded stating that he was a freelance architect for the Company and did not engage in any on-site work. He stated that he was only engaged to prepare planning drawings, which had been approved.

13. In relation to the terms of engagement provided to the Referrer he asserted that they were compliant with the Code and contained terms that covered the agreed scope of services, fee structure, professional indemnity cover, limits of liability and procedures for variation. The Registered Person confirmed that he was not named within the terms of engagement but that he worked within the Company structure and completed his work in line with the Company terms of engagement. He did not consider that there was a lack of transparency regarding his involvement and had no intention to mislead the Referrer by allowing his ARB registration number to be included in company documentation.

14. He stated that the inclusion of his number was to demonstrate that the Company services were being conducted by a registered architect. However, he accepted that he should have taken greater care to avoid any misunderstanding. He assured ARB that his registration number would not be further used in general company correspondence and would only be used in connection with his own architectural services. He denied acting with dishonesty or a lack of integrity and asserted that he had rectified his error.

Stage 1 – Findings of Fact

15. The PCC Rules make it clear that the burden of proof at the fact-finding stage is on the ARB. So, it is for the ARB to prove the factual particulars set out in the allegation. It is not for the Registered Person to disprove them.

16. The ARB must prove the charges on the balance of probabilities, another way of putting that is, ‘is it more likely than not that the allegations occurred as alleged?’

17. In coming to its findings, the Committee considered the written documentation provided by both the ARB and the Registered Person together with the oral evidence of the Referrer and the Registered Person. The Committee also took into account the submissions made by the Presenter on behalf of the ARB and of the Registered Person.

18. The Committee received and accepted the legal advice provided by the Chair. The Committee then proceeded to consider each of the disputed particulars in turn and makes its findings of fact as follows. The Committee noted that there are other areas of dispute between the Registered Person and the Referrer, but this Committee is not tasked with resolving anything other than the alleged conduct as set out in the particulars.

Particular 1 – The Registered Person failed to provide adequate terms of engagement contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code

19. The Committee noted the submissions made by the Presenter on behalf of the ARB that for this particular to be proved the ARB would need to establish that there was a duty or requirement for the Registered Person to provide adequate terms of engagement to the Referrer and that the Registered Person failed to meet that requirement.

20. The Committee considered that the Referrer was the client but also accepted that the Registered Person was in a contractual relationship with the Company. The Committee noted that the Registered Person had described himself as working in a “freelance” capacity but also noted that he accepted that he was working for the Company for approximately 4 years and, at the relevant time, was the only registered architect providing architectural services for the Company. The Committee also noted the Registered Person had provided correspondence to ARB during the investigation of these allegations within which he aligned himself with the engagement e-mail provided to the Referrer by the Company and exhibited as such within the ARB bundle.

21. The Committee concluded that the freelance status of the Registered Person did not affect the reality of his position within the Company. By his own admission he was the sole provider of architectural services for the Company and was the only registered architect at the relevant time. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person was under a duty to ensure that his architectural services were provided to the end user with terms of engagement that were fully compliant with Standard 4.4 of the Code.

22. In his oral evidence the Registered Person conceded, with the benefit of hindsight, that when he compared the terms of engagement provided to the Referrer with the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code that they were deficient in a number of respects. The Committee agrees. Other than confirming the identity of the contracting parties, the scope of the work and the fee, the terms of engagement fail to comply with any of the remaining requirements set out under Standard 4.4.

23. The Committee is satisfied, for the reasons set out above, that the Registered Person had a duty to ensure the terms of engagement provided to the Referrer were compliant with Standard 4.4 and he failed to do so. Particular 1 is proved on this basis.

Particular 2: The Registered Person allowed the misuse of his ARB registration number in a manner inconsistent with his professional obligations, which was:

a) dishonest and/or
b) lacked integrity.

24. In reaching the conclusions in respect of Particular 1 the Committee had determined that the Registered Person was an integral part of the Company and was the sole or main provider of architectural services. The Committee noted that the current ARB guidance “6 simple ways to help protect your title/use the arb logo” allows the use of the ARB logo on the websites and published materials belonging to a practice if there is an architect in control and management of all of the architectural work of that practice. The Presenter acknowledged that the allegations against the Registered Person do not include the use of the ARB logo and the Committee did not consider that the use of the logo on emails and website pages would be problematic given that the Registered Person was the main provider of architectural services for the Company.

25. The Committee noted that the emails sent from the Company often contained a banner at the foot of the e-mail that included the ARB logo together with the Registered Person’s registration number in smaller print. The ability to download such a logo was evidently available via the ARB website and the Registered Person accepted that he had obtained a personalised logo in this way. However, the Registered Person did not accept that he sent his personalised logo to the Company for their use.

26. The Committee did not consider that there was any difficulty in the Company website either using the ARB logo or, indeed, using the ARB logo that contained the Registered Person’s personal registration number. The Committee considered that this was a legitimate use of the ARB logo and not inconsistent with the suggested use of the logo that currently appeared on the ARB guidance.

27. The case against the Registered Person related specifically to the use of the Registered Person’s ARB registration number beneath the signature of AC a director of the Company. AC was not an architect and was not registered with the ARB.

28. The Committee noted that the e-mail signature of AC appeared in a standard fashion at the foot of his emails and also at the end of the terms of engagement provided to the Referrer. Beneath his printed name would appear his signature and beneath that appeared the name of the Company followed by the address and company number. Beneath that appeared the words “Architects Registration Board” and finally the registration number belonging to the Registered Person.

29. The Committee considered that the use of the Registered Person’s personal registration number beneath the signature of AC was a misuse of that number. By placing the number directly beneath the personal details of AC the impression would be given that the number was attributable to AC in his personal capacity.

30. The Committee noted that the Company emails from the Registered Person (that also had the Company banner appended to them) did not have the ARB logo included within the banner at all. However, the Registered Person would always refer to himself as “architect” beneath his email signature. AC did not describe himself as an architect but also did not describe himself as either the owner or director of the Company.

31. Having concluded that the use of the Registered Person’s registration number as described above was a misuse, the Committee went on to consider whether or not the Registered Person had allowed this misuse. The Committee did not conclude that there was any evidence that the Registered Person had positively encouraged AC to use the registration number beneath his signature, but it was evident that the Registered Person was aware that AC was using the registration number in the way described.

32. The Registered Person explained in his evidence how he did not see anything wrong with the use of his registration number beneath the signature of AC because the Registered Person was providing the architectural services for the Company. The Committee considers that by passively acquiescing to the use of the number in this way the Registered Person had made it possible for AC to misuse his registration number. In this sense the Registered Person allowed the misuse of the number.

33. Having reached this finding, the Committee went on to consider whether the conduct could be described as either dishonest or lacking in integrity. The Committee applied the test for dishonesty as set out in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) UKSC 67 and first assessed what the Registered Person’s genuinely held belief as to the facts were at the relevant time.

34. The Committee finds that the Registered Person knew that his personal ARB registration number was being used beneath the name of AC in emails to, amongst others, the Referrer. The Committee also considers that the Registered Person’s genuinely held belief at the time was that the Referrer was not misled as to the status of either the Registered Person or AC. The Committee noted the consistent evidence of the Registered Person on this point and the evidence that the Registered Person always described himself as an architect whereas AC did not.

35. The Committee also noted the evidence of the Referrer in relation to an alleged conversation during which the Referrer called AC an “architect” and this error was not corrected by the Registered Person. This evidence is clearly important in assessing whether the Registered Person knew that the Referrer was labouring under a misapprehension as to AC’s status.

36. The Committee noted that this conversation was, according to the Referrer, during a video call at some point in late 2022 or early 2023. There were no contemporaneous notes of this conversation. When the Referrer made his initial complaint to the ARB in November 2024 reference is made to AC passing himself off as an architect but there is no reference to this conversation or that the Registered Person was aware of the passing off. The first time that the Referrer mentions the conversation is within his witness statement which is signed 30 October 2025. This is almost three years after the alleged conversation took place.

37. Within the same statement the Referrer comments “at the time we had not given much thought to the registration number and had assumed it was one that belonged to the Company.” Evidently, the potentially misleading nature of having the ARB registration number of the Registered Person beneath the name of AC did not initially give rise to the misapprehension that AC was a registered architect but that the Company had ARB registered status.

38. Having considered the evidence in relation to the alleged conversation at which the Registered Person was said to be present, the Committee concludes that it cannot safely find that the conversation took place in the way alleged in that the Registered Person was in some way complicit with AC passing himself off as an architect. In coming to that conclusion, the Committee also considered the Registered Person’s good character and the inherent improbability that he would behave in such an improper manner.

39. Therefore, the Committee resolved that the Registered Person’s genuinely held belief at the time as to the facts was that he did not believe that the Referrer was being misled by the use of his registration number beneath the signature of AC. Having reached that determination, the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s actions would be considered dishonest by the standards of the ordinary decent person. The Committee concluded that his actions, in light of our findings as to his genuine belief as to the facts, could not be described as dishonest. Therefore, The Committee finds particular 2(a) not proved. The Committee went on to consider whether his actions lacked integrity.

40. The Committee considered the legal guidance provided by the Chair in relation to integrity and considered that there was a falling short of the professional standards expected of a registered architect in permitting his personal ARB registration number to be placed beneath the name of a company director who was not a registered architect. The Registered Person, in evidence, conceded that there was a high potential for the information to be misleading and it is clear that the Referrer was misled. Although initially stating in his witness statement that he believed the number related to the Company, the Referrer also stated that he believed the number could also have been attributable to AC who he believed was also an architect.

41. The Committee did not conclude that the Registered Person had acted deliberately or that his failure to have AC remove the registration number was a conscious omission and failing on his part. However, the Registered Person has reflected upon the misuse of his registration number and acknowledges the risk of the information being misleading. The Committee does not find that the Registered Person had acted with an awareness that there was a misuse. However, the Committee concludes that the Registered Person was not sufficiently mindful and cautious in his practise.

42. However, objectively assessed, this was a falling short of the standards required and amounts to a lack of integrity. The Registered Person should have been aware that the misuse of his personal registration number had the potential to mislead, and he should have acted to correct that situation.

43. The Committee therefore finds particular 2(b) proved on this basis.

Stage 2 – Unacceptable Professional Conduct

44. The Committee went on from the fact-finding stage to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct in relation to the Stage 1 findings of Particulars 1 and 2 amounted to Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC).

45. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter on behalf of the ARB and from the Registered Person and accepted the advice of the Chair. The Committee reminded itself that a finding of UPC is a matter for its own independent judgement having regard to any facts found proved. There is no burden or standard of proof.

46. The Committee noted that UPC is defined in section 14(1)(a) of the Architects Act 1997 as conduct which falls short of the standard required of an Architect. The Committee further noted that misconduct, which is akin to UPC, 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.”

47. The standards required to be followed by the Registered Person are contained in the Code. 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 result in a finding of UPC. However, a failure to follow the guidance of the Code, whether in one’s professional or private life, is a factor that will be taken into account should it be necessary to examine the conduct or competence of an architect.

48. The Committee also reminded itself of the relevance of drawing a distinction between a single act and multiple acts of concern, “a single negligent act or omission is less likely to cross the threshold of misconduct than multiple acts or omissions…” (R (Calhaem) v General Medical Council [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin).

49. The Committee had regard to the case of Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin) and noted 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” is required. The Committee also recognised that any failing must be serious and that seriousness needs to be given its proper weight.

50. Standards 4.4 and 1.1 of the Code have been breached. The central question for the Committee is whether these breaches are sufficiently serious to constitute unacceptable professional conduct. The breaches are linked, as they concern the inadequacy of information provided to the Referrer at the outset of a contractual relationship (including information regarding “who will be responsible for what” Bullet Point 4 of Standard 4.4) and the confusion caused regarding the status of AC due to the misuse of the Registered Person’s ARB registration number.

51. The Committee agrees with the submission of the Presenter that the absence of essential information within the terms of engagement deprives clients of full and clear knowledge of their rights. There was, for example, no reference to the mechanism for suspending or terminating the contract, or the existence of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes and no mention of a complaint handling process. The Committee notes that the terms set out in Standard 4.4 are primarily directed towards providing a structure within which disputes can be resolved and the adverse consequences of a dispute can be mitigated. In this case they were largely absent and contributed to the confusion described by the Referrer.

52. However, the Committee notes its findings at Stage 1 and in particular the leading role that AC took in both the drafting and provision of the terms of engagement. Although the Committee has found that the Registered Person should have been more proactive in ensuring that the terms of engagement were fully in compliance with Standard 4.4, the Committee acknowledges that it was AC who was primarily responsible for the content of the terms of engagement.

53. The Committee has found that the Registered Person was too passive within the Company structure and failed to acknowledge that his was the primary architectural role and that he was the only ARB registered person within the Company that allowed the Company to rely upon his ARB status and, for instance, to use the ARB logo prominently on the Company website and in company emails. The Committee’s findings at Stage 1 are that the Registered Person should have ensured that the terms of engagement related to the provision of his architectural services were in compliance with Standard 4.4 of the Code. In failing to do so, the Committee concludes that the Registered Person was negligent.

54. Having come to this conclusion, the Committee reflected on the guidance provided in the case of Calhaem. There is no evidence that the negligence within Particular 1 extended beyond the contract between the Company and the Referrer. The Committee concluded that it was certainly possible that the terms of engagement typically issued by the Company would have been similar in nature, but on the basis that there was no evidence of this the Committee concluded that this could be properly described as an isolated act of negligence.

55. On the basis that the conduct was isolated and that the Registered Person had played no direct role in the drafting and provision of the terms of engagement, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s conduct was not sufficiently serious to be properly categorised as Unacceptable Professional Conduct in respect of Particular 1.

56. The Committee then turned its considerations to Particular 2 and the associated finding of a lack of integrity. The Committee has found that the Registered Person was aware of the misuse of his registration number and that the misuse continued for a period of time and could not be described as isolated. It should have been obvious that the way in which the number was being misused had the potential to mislead. Although there is no written evidence that AC deliberately misrepresented himself as an architect, it was certainly the Referrer’s impression that he was the lead architect for the Company. This false impression would have been bolstered to a significant extent by the misuse of the Registered Person’s registration number beneath AC ‘s name in company documentation.

57. The Committee acknowledges that a finding of a lack of integrity can fall within a wide spectrum of seriousness. The Committee has found that the Registered Person did not act deliberately or recklessly but finds that he did act with a high level of negligence. The Registered Person should have spoken out as soon as he became aware that AC was misusing his personal ARB registration number. The protection of the status of a registered architect and the maintenance of the reputation of the profession is a serious matter and the Committee concludes that the conduct found proved in relation to Particular 2 is sufficiently serious to amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

Stage 3 – Sanction

58. Having found the Registered Person’s actions amounted to UPC the Committee then went on to consider what, if any, sanction to impose in this case. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter, on behalf of ARB, and from the Registered Person. The Committee accepted the legal advice from the Chair and took careful note of the ARB Sanctions Guidance (“the Guidance”) adopted by the PCC from 1 April 2022.

59. The Committee had regard to the public interest which includes the need to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and ARB and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, behaviour, and competence.

60. The Committee was mindful that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect and any sanction imposed must balance the rights of the Registered Person against the need to uphold proper standards and protect the public.

61. The Committee first assessed the seriousness of the finding of UPC with reference to the facts found proved during the hearing and by considering the competing aggravating and mitigating factors.

62. The Committee noted the aggravating factors submitted by the Presenter which included that the misleading inclusion of the Registered Person’s ARB number in the email signature of AC had been repeated over a number of emails and spanning a period of time and was not a one-off event. The Presenter also submitted that the Registered Person’s insight into the impact of his conduct was limited, especially in terms of the adverse impact upon the trust and confidence that the public would have in the profession. The Committee was also referred to the section within the Guidance that addressed concerns related to findings of dishonesty and integrity but the Presenter properly conceded that there had not been a finding of dishonesty against the Registered Person in this case.

63. The Committee noted that the findings at Stage 2 described this case as an omission to act on the part of the Registered Person that continued for a period of time and was not corrected by him.

64. The Committee also noted the mitigating factors submitted by the Presenter including the developing insight demonstrated by the Registered Person in his submissions during the hearing that acknowledged the errors that he had made and his previous unblemished record.

65. The Committee also noted the submissions made by the Registered Person that included the steps of remediation that he had taken. He submitted that he had requested that the Company remove his ARB number from the website about a year before the hearing. He acknowledged that the Company had not fully complied with his request until very recently, but the Committee accepted that he had limited influence over the Company as he had not collaborated with them for approximately a year.

66. The Registered Person expressed regret and apologised for his “error of judgement” and submitted that he had not intended for the Referrer to be misled and had not appreciated at the relevant time the consequences of allowing his ARB registration number to be placed beneath the e-mail signature of the Company director.

67. Having considered the aggravating and mitigating features in this case and reflecting on the findings at Stages 1 and 2, the Committee was satisfied that the Unacceptable Professional Conduct in this matter fell towards the lower end of seriousness.

68. The Committee went on to consider the sanctions available to it in ascending order. It first considered whether it was appropriate to impose no sanction. Given the importance of the maintenance of public confidence and the reputation of the profession, this was not considered appropriate. The Guidance suggests that this course of action would be appropriate only in “exceptional circumstances” which the Committee considers do not apply to the facts of this case.

69. A Reprimand was considered next and the Committee carefully considered the list of factors that would support the appropriateness of this sanction that are contained within the Guidance.

70. The Committee finds that there is no evidence that the Registered Person poses an ongoing unacceptable risk to the public and there is no evidence that his conduct has seriously affected his clients or the wider public. The Committee acknowledges that the Registered Person’s conduct had some impact on the Referrer by contributing to the misunderstanding of AC’s role but this appears to be unconnected to the primary, and more serious, substance of the Referrer’s dispute that related to the quality of the building work that was carried out by the Company.

71. The Registered Person has a good previous disciplinary history and the Committee has already concluded that his actions were not deliberate.

72. The Committee was able to find evidence of genuine insight demonstrated by the Registered Person although this had developed throughout the hearing. The Registered Person persuaded the Committee that he has reflected upon his practise with a self-critical eye and has learned from the experience. He has assured the Committee that he has taken corrective steps and the Committee accepts his assurances.

73. For the reasons set out above the Committee is satisfied that a formal reprimand represents a proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee reviewed the next most serious sanction, a Penalty Order, but did not consider that this would be proportionate in the circumstances.

74. The Committee therefore imposes a reprimand.

75. This concludes the determination.