Mr Emanuele Falsanis

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of
EMANUELE FALSANISI (073516G)
___________

Present:
Sean Hammond (Chair)
Robert Dearman (Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (Lay Member)
___________

Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Emanuele Falsanisi (“the Registered Person”)

A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The disciplinary order is a Reprimand.

Allegation

An allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct has been brought by the ARB against the Registered Person. In support of the allegation, the ARB relies upon the following particular:

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 a registered architect and Director of his own practice, EFDW

2. Madhavan Raman and Ruth Raman (“the Referrers”) are the owners of a residential property in London, which they purchased in August 2019 (“the Property”). The Referrers wanted to undertake significant renovation works to the Property, including a loft conversion, ground floor extension and modifications to the first floor (“the Project”).

3. The Referrers were recommended to engage the Registered Person by a builder who had previously worked with him. The first correspondence between the Referrers and the Registered Person was on 19 June 2021.

4. On 25 June 2021, the Referrers attended a Zoom call with the Registered Person. Following this Zoom call, on 27 June 2021, the Referrers sent copies of the floor plans of the Property’s current layout, the structural report regarding the attic, and photographs to the Registered Person.

5. On 8 July 2021, the Registered Person sent the Referrers a ‘Professional Quote for architectural services’, which they signed and returned on 18 July 2021. On 19 July 2021, the Registered Person provided the Referrers with a copy of the letter of appointment which he had countersigned. No other written terms of engagement were The ‘Professional Quote’ document referred to the RIBA Domestic Project Agreement 2018, but this was not provided to the Referrers. In fact, no document with such a title as published by RIBA existsThe Project involved designing and obtaining planning permission for a rear extension and loft conversion. Initial plans were provided in August 2021. Following this, revised drawings and plans were prepared following feedback from the A small number of Zoom meetings were held to discuss the proposals and changes to be made. Further updated drawings were sent in September 2021.During the process, the Referrers also instructed the Registered Person to undertake works required in respect of Party Wall Notices.

6. The Project involved designing and obtaining planning permission for a rear extension and loft conversion. Initial plans were provided in August 2021. Following this, revised drawings and plans were prepared following feedback from the A small number of Zoom meetings were held to discuss the proposals and changes to be made. Further updated drawings were sent in September 2021.

7. A planning application was submitted on 7 October 2021. Planning permission was rejected and modifications were required to the A revised application was submitted in December 2021. Planning approval was granted on 10 January 2022.A separate application was made for planning permission for the loft conversion. Planning permission was granted in February 2022.

8. During the process, the Referrers also instructed the Registered Person to undertake works required in respect of Party Wall Notices.

9. Issues arose during the project, and the Referrer says that they therefore decided that they would not ask the Registered Person to be the project manager for the build. The Referrers instructed a third-party building surveyor to assist with the project from April 2022 onwards.

10. Issues later arose regarding errors in the drawings submitted. The Referrers understood that planning approval was given for a depth of 4350mm but approvals were only granted for 3500mm. Works had to stop at the Property until the depth was reduced to 3500mm. The Referrers forwarded an email from the Local Authority confirming this to the Registered Person on 7 November 2022. The Registered Person responded the same day stating that the dimensions were the ones in his drawing and stating he hoped the inconvenience was “on its way to being resolved”.

11. On 29 August 2023, the Referrers made a complaint to the ARB.

Admissions

12. The Registered Person admits that he did not provide adequate terms of engagement and that this was contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code.

Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct

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

Standard 4 of the Architects Code (2017) (“the Code”) requires an architect to competently manage their Standard 4.4 requires architects to enter into a written agreement with the client before any professional work is undertaken. The written agreement must adequately cover:

a. the contracting parties;
b. the scope of the work:
c. the fee or method of calculating it;
d. who will be responsible for what;
e. any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;
f. the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;
g. a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by ARB;
h. the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed;
i. that you have a complaints-handling procedure available on request;
j. that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to this Code.

15. The Registered Person admits that he did not provide adequate terms of engagement to the Referrers. The Registered Person admits that the document referred to in his terms of engagement, named “RIBA Domestic Project Agreement 2018” was not provided, nor does such a RIBA document exist with that title.16. The Registered Person admits that the terms of engagement provided did not set out who would be responsible for what, or provisions for the suspension or termination of the It did not set out any alternative dispute resolution schemes available or that a complaints handling procedure was available on request. The document also did not indicate that the RegisteredPerson had adequate and appropriate insurance or that he is registered with ARB.

17. The Registered Person also admits that the terms of engagement referred to RIBA work stages A to H; and that these work stages were superseded in 2013 by numerical work stages 0 to The Registered Person admits that the document was therefore out of date as well as not being in accordance with Standard 4.4 of the Code.

18. 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 of the Code. The Registered Person accepts that the provision of full and clear written terms of engagement to their client before commencing work is essential to maintain transparency, build trust, and uphold professional standards. The failure to issue adequate written terms of engagement is a serious breach of Standard 4.4 of the Code; the failing by the Registered Person was one that is a fundamental and basic aspect of professional practice that aims to reduce risk to both client and architect. It is a document that both parties should be able to rely upon in the event of a dispute and the failure to issue compliant terms amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

19. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of Standard 4 of the Code.

Disciplinary Order:

20. 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. Reprimand.21. The Registered Person has engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions. He has also admitted that these amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

22. 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 reprimand is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose. The parties agree that a reprimand is proportionate in this case on the basis that there is no suggestion that the Registered Person poses a risk to the public and the failure to issue adequate terms of engagement in this case has not impacted on the wider public. Further, the Registered Person’s actions were not deliberate. The parties agree that the failing is one that falls at the lower end of the scale of seriousness but that a reprimand is appropriate to mark the conduct as unacceptable.