A+ A-
Select Page

Mr Colin Desmond Davies

 

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

COLIN DESMOND DAVIES (046654I)

———-

Martin Winter (Chair)

Robert Dearman (PCC Architect Member)

Rachel Childs (PCC Lay Member)

———–

In respect of the charges against Colin Desmond Davies (046654I) (“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 (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 the ARB against the Registered Person. ARB has particularised the allegation 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 failed to co-operate with regulatory requirements and investigations, contrary to Standard 11.1 of the Architects Code;

3) On 18 September 2023, the Registered Person sent an email to the Referrer which was inappropriate, in that, he sought to persuade the Referrer into withdrawing her complaint to the ARB;

4) The Registered Person’s actions at particular 3 lacked integrity.

 

Statement of Agreed Facts:

 

  1. The Registered Person is a registered architect and architect at Coombs Davies Bickley Architects.

 

  1. On or around 29 April 2022, TN (“the Referrer”) approached the Registered Person with a view to appointing him to provide architectural services in relation to a loft extension of her property in Leatherhead (“the Property”).

 

  1. On 3 May 2022, the Referrer contacted the Registered Person via “We Transfer” and provided him with a number of documents, including an outline of the proposed scope of services.

 

  1. The Referrer advises that she did not receive a written response to her message of 3 May 2022. Instead, she had a telephone conversation with the Registered Person on 7 June 2022, where they discussed her brief including how many windows she wanted to be included in the design and the layout more generally. She informed the Registered Person that she required these drawings for when she came to sell the Property. In respect of costs, the Referrer confirms that this was discussed during the same telephone call. Her recollection is that the Registered Person informed her it would take a “couple of hours” for him to undertake the work and provided a quote of approximately £250. She says that she was not advised of the Registered Person’s hourly rate or that he would be charging on an hourly rate basis.

 

  1. On 17 May 2022, the Registered Person emailed the Referrer drawings for her review. She responded on the same day with her comments. On 7 June 2022, the Referrer emailed the Registered Person requesting amendments to the layout, which resulted in a telephone call between the parties where this was discussed in more detail.

 

  1. On 11 June 2022, the Registered Person submitted the planning application to Mole Valley District Council (“the Council”). The application was approved by the Council on 19 July 2022.

 

  1. On 8 August 2022, the Referrer received the Registered Person’s invoice for £668.08. On the same date, the Referrer emailed the Registered Person querying whether this fee was correct, as she had expected a figure closer to £250. On 10 August 2022, the Registered Person responded confirming that his invoice was correct. The Referrer responded the same day, commenting that she would settle the invoice that night and that she may be back in touch around the time she sold the Property to make changes to the proposals.

 

  1. The Registered Person responded confirming he would be able to amend the drawings but that a lease plan was very specific, and not usually required. The Referrer replied advising that she thought the Registered Person had misunderstood what she needed, explaining that the current drawing she had was not of much use to her as it was not current in that it did not show the extra bedroom at the front of the Property. She asked that the Registered Person amend his invoice to omit any time charged for the creation of the downstairs plan on the basis she would not be able to use it.

 

  1. On 15 August 2022 the Referrer followed this email up with a WhatsApp message. On the same date, the Registered Person responded, stating that he drew plans on the basis that he believed the layout to replicate the neighbours’ property, was not aware of a change as he had not visited, and only charged for the work he did and time spent for the planning application. The Referrer sent a further WhatsApp message on the same date advising that she required an up-to-date ground floor layout for when she came to sell the property. She accused the Registered Person of not keeping her updated on costs.

 

  1. On the same date, the Referrer submitted a complaint to the ARB.

 

  1. On 23 August 2022, the Registered Person responded confirming that he would not be reducing his invoice and confirmed he had carried out the work asked of him. The Referrer responded on the same day, notifying the Registered Person that she had contacted the ARB.

 

  1. On 25 August 2022, the Registered Person sent his formal response to the Referrer, which summarised his position on the works. He re-attached his invoice of 8 August 2022 and indicated that if he did not receive settlement within 14 days he would commence legal proceedings.

 

  1. The Referrer responded on 27 August 2022, attaching a drawing and her formal position on the Registered Person’s letter. In spite of the Referrer’s complaint about the drawings, she paid the Registered Person £325.38, which the Registered Person confirmed had been received on 10 October 2022. He requested the outstanding balance of £342.60 to be paid within 14 days.

 

  1. On 11 October 2022, the Referrer sent the Registered Person a WhatsApp providing him with a marked up drawing so he could see what her complaint was. She advises she had no further correspondence with the Registered Person.

 

  1. In March 2023, the ARB notified the Registered Person of the allegation made against him. He was asked to provide a response and evidence of his Professional Indemnity Insurance. No response was received. The ARB chased for a response and the Registered Person was reminded of Standard 11 of the ARB Code.

 

  1. In April 2023 the ARB Registration Team received a request from the Registered Person to resign from the register. The ARB wrote to the Registered Person advising that the complaint made against him was being referred to the Investigations Panel. The Registered Person did not respond. On 6 July 2023 the ARB notified the Registered Person of the Investigations Panel preliminary decision; no response was received. Further correspondence was sent advising the Registered Person of the Investigations Panel final decision in August 2023. On 11 September 2023 the ARB received a letter from the Registered Person advising he had been travelling and that he had retired and no longer used his email address. The ARB responded by registered post asking if he intended to respond to the allegation and he was asked to provide a response by 18 September 2023. The Registered Person did not then respond until 18 October 2023.

 

  1. On 18 September 2023, the Registered Person emailed the Referrer, stating that he never made an application to the courts as he did not want the associated stress due to age-related health issues. He stated that he was aware she had made a complaint to his regulator (incorrectly referencing the ARB as ARCUK) and stated that he would not proceed with any action to recover any fees if the Referrer were to “equally withdraw [her] enquiry”. He also offered to complete drawings free of charge if she withdrew her complaint.

 

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: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice (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 Code. The Registered Person accepts that discussing the scope of his appointment by telephone was insufficient and did not comply with the Code’s requirements. There followed a dispute between the parties as to the fees that had been agreed, and the scope of services the Registered Person had agreed to undertake. In the absence of clear and compliant terms of engagement, the Referrer was left in a position where she was unclear as to precisely which parts of the project the Registered Person was appointed to assist with and at what cost. Whilst the Registered Person’s position is that he discussed his fees and scope of services with the Referrer by telephone at the outset of his involvement, that is not an adequate substitute for written terms of engagement.

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to co-operate with regulatory requirements and investigations, contrary to Standard 11.1 of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice (2017). The Registered Person was provided with multiple opportunities to respond to the ARB. He was sent chaser emails but he did not provide any response to the allegations raised. Whilst the Registered Person has indicated that he stopped using his email address as shown on the register from May 2023, the ARB notes that he had been notified of the complaint and asked to provide his response on 17 March 2023 and 12 April 2023 before his retirement. He ignored that correspondence. In respect of the correspondence that was sent post-May 2023, the Registered Person had a duty to ensure his details on the register were correct and that the regulator had the information they needed to contact him. The Registered Person admits that on 18 September 2023, he sent an email to the Referrer which was inappropriate, in that he sought to persuade the Referrer into withdrawing her complaint to the ARB, contrary to Standard 9.5 of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice (2017). The correspondence leaves the reader with the impression that if the Referrer does not agree to the Registered Person’s request to withdraw her complaint, he may, in return, commence legal proceedings against her in relation to his fees and/or contact Taylor Wimpey without her consent.

 

  1. The Registered Person accepts that his actions in contacting the Referrer on 18 September 2023 lacked integrity, contrary to Standard 1.1. of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice (2017). Confidence in the profession would be greatly diminished by registered professionals seeking to impede and/or restrict the ability of clients to raise genuine concerns with their regulatory body.

 

Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct

 

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

 

  1. In respect of Standard 4.4 of the Code, 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. 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, when a dispute arises later in the process it may become more difficult to resolve and it is important that a client is fully aware of their rights when engaging an architect.

 

  1. Standard 11.1 of the Code expects an architect to co-operate fully and promptly with the ARB and within any specified timescale. The ARB is the independent statutory regulator of all UK architects. It has a number of functions, one of which is to protect the users and potential users of architects’ services through regulation of architects. It is of the upmost importance that the ARB is able to carry out its regulatory function effectively and that requires the co-operation of its registered members. The Registered Person accepts that his failure to adequately co-operate with the ARB and his apparent failure to understand or appreciate the importance of this is a breach of his professional obligations under the Code.

 

  1. Standard 9.5 of the Code exists to prevent any agreements being entered into whereby the terms of such agreement would prevent any party from reporting an apparent breach of the Code to the ARB. The Registered Person accepts that the correspondence with the Referrer was inappropriate, and a breach of his professional obligations under the Code.

 

  1. Standard 1.1 of the Code expects an Architect to act with honesty and integrity at all times, and to avoid any actions or situations which are inconsistent with their professional obligations. Wingate and Evans – v – SRA and SRA -v- Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366 set out the key principles of lack of integrity. Wingate established that integrity is used to express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which professionals expect from their own members. In broad terms integrity denotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession, and professional integrity is linked to the manner in which that particular profession professes to serve the public. The Registered Person accepts that his conduct lacked integrity and was in breach of Standard 1.1 of the Code, as the need to act with integrity is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the profession.

 

Disciplinary Order:

 

  1. The Consent Order Panel of the 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 financial penalty of £1,500.

 

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