Select Page


Download this page as a PDF

Mr George De Sousa

 

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

George De Sousa

Registration No. 063886B

Held as a video conference

On

24- 25 May 2023

———-

Present

Sadia Zouq (Chair)

 Robert Dearman (PCC Architect Member)

Martin Pike (PCC Lay Member)

———–

In this case, the ARB is represented by Ms Kathryn Sheridan of Kingsley Napley LLP

Mr George De Sousa (“the Registered Person”) has attended this hearing and is legally represented by Ms Claire Robinson, Counsel, instructed by DWF Law LLP.

 

 

The PCC found the Registered Person guilty of unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”) in that he:

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

and that by doing so, he acted in breach of Standards  4.4 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”).

The sanction imposed is a reprimand.

 

The Allegation

  1. Mr George De Sousa (“the Registered Person”) is charged by the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) with unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”), and the Professional Conduct Committee (“the Committee”) is responsible for deciding whether the allegation is found proved, or not. The ARB relies upon the following particular in support of the Allegation:

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

  1. This case arises out of a complaint made by Ms Laila Gale (“the Referrer”), in respect of the professional services carried out by the Registered Person in relation to her property (“the Property”).
  2. At the outset of the hearing the Registered Person denied the charge.

 

Preliminary Application

ARB’s application to admit email correspondence, dated 15 March 2023

  1. The ARB emailed the Registered Person on 15 March 2023 requesting the document, the Royal Institute of British Architect’s (RIBA) RIBA Conditions of Engagement for the appointment of an Architect, referred to in the Memorandum of Professional Charges sent to the Referrer on 16 November 2020. The Registered Person replied to the ARB’s email attaching RIBA Domestic Professional Services Contract 2018. Ms Sheridan submitted that the ARB’s request for this document is referred to in paragraph 6 of Mr Coates’s witness statement dated 16 March 2023, and therefore is relevant. Ms Sheridan stated that it was an oversight the correspondence had not been included in the ARB’s bundle. She referred to Rules 19 and 20 and submitted that it was both fair and relevant for the correspondence to be admitted into evidence.
  2. Ms Robinson did not object to the correspondence being admitted into evidence.
  3. The Legally Qualified Chair referred to Rule 19. The Committee considered the contents of the email correspondence and paragraph 6 of Mr Coates’s witness statement and concluded that it was in the interests of justice that all relevant evidence was before it. There was no dispute that the document had been requested by the ARB and provided by the Registered Person. In the circumstances it was fair to admit the email correspondence into evidence.

 

Background

  1. The Registered Person registered with the ARB on 22 February 2000. The Registered Person is an architect and co-founder of Page Architects.
  2. The Referrer purchased her property in June 2016. The Property needed extensive work. As part of the sale the previous owners left the plans produced by their architects, Design Plus Architects (“Design Plus”).
  3. In 2017, the Referrer engaged Design Plus. The firm was run by an architect, Mr EC and his partner, Ms MG. The Referrer and her family had the building work undertaken while living at the Property and therefore decided to complete the works in phases. Full planning permission for a comprehensive scheme of renovations was obtained by Design Plus on 26 April 2017 as well as the first phase of Building Control approval. In 2018, phase one was completed. The Referrer completed the Building Control application for phase two of the work.
  4. In 2018 Design Plus closed. Ms MG began to work for Page Architects in early 2019 – the same company as the Registered Person. By this time, the first two phases of works were completed, and the Referrer wanted to commence the third phase. Revised planning applications were needed for phase three of the works. Throughout 2019 and 2020, Ms MG assisted the Referrer with this by developing some alternative layouts. During meetings between Ms MG and the Referrer in late 2019 and early 2020, the Referrer and her husband, Mr SG, were introduced to the Registered Person. At the time the Registered Person did not have a prominent role on the Referrer’s project and there had not been an agreement between him and the Referrer at this time.
  5. In March 2020, all works on the Property were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms MG left Page Architects at some stage prior to November 2020. Building control approval and planning permission was required to complete the next phase of the work. It is the Referrer’s evidence that during a telephone call with the Registered Person, he confirmed that he would undertake the work.
  6. On 16 November 2020, the Registered Person sent the Referrer’s husband the terms of engagement by email. Attached to the email were three documents: a fees proposal letter, a letter in relation to the Health and Safety (Management in Construction) (Jersey) Regulations 2016 (“health and safety letter”), and a document titled Memorandum of Professional Charges. It is the Referrer’s evidence that the Registered Person did not provide any further explanation of his terms, beyond these three documents.
  7. In January 2021, the planning application was submitted, and subsequently approved on 3 March 2021. Building control approval was granted in early May 2021. It is the Referrer’s evidence that she was not pleased with the service Page Architects had provided. On 21 July 2021 the Referrer made a complaint by email to Page Architects. Correspondence between the Referrer and Registered Person continued in the following months with the Referrer expressing her dissatisfaction with Page Architects services. On 6 March 2022, the Referrer made a formal complaint to the ARB about the Registered Person.

 

Evidence

  1. In reaching its decisions on facts and UPC, the Committee carefully considered the following documentary evidence:

i. The Report of the ARB’s Solicitor dated 20 March 2023;

ii. The Referrer’s witness statement dated 13 March 2023;

iii. Mr Cameron Dryhurst Coates witness statement dated 16 March 2023;

iv. ARB’s Exhibits 1 to 10 in the ARB’s bundle;

v. Email correspondence between the ARB and Registered Person dated 15 March 2023;

vi. The Registered Person’s witness statement dated 18 May 2023;

vii. The Registered Person’s Response Form dated 13 April 2023;

viii. Five testimonials provided on behalf of the Registered Person.

ix. The Committee also heard live evidence from the Referrer and the Registered Person.

 

Legal Advice

  1. The Committee accepted the legal advice given by the Legally Qualified Chair which is a matter of record. The Chair reminded the Committee that the onus of proof was on the ARB and that the standard of proof was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. In determining the facts, the Committee should consider the evidence in the round and was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from established facts but should not speculate. The Committee had regard to the guidance published by the ARB and to the content of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”). Should the Committee find the facts proved, it would need to consider UPC. UPC was a matter for the Committee’s independent judgment to which no burden or standard of proof applies. UPC is defined as conduct which falls seriously short of the standard required of a registered person. In reaching its findings on UPC, the Committee recognises that not every shortcoming on the part of an architect, nor failure to comply with the provisions of the Code, will necessarily amount to UPC. However, a failure to follow the guidance of the Code is a factor that will be taken into account should it be necessary to examine the conduct or competence of an architect. Architects are expected to be guided by the spirit of the Code as well as its express terms. The Committee had regard to the good character of the Registered Person.

 

Decision on Facts

  1. In reaching its decision, the Committee carefully considered the live evidence of the Referrer and Registered Person, together with the documents set out at paragraph 13 above. It considered the submissions made by Ms Sheridan on behalf of the ARB and by Ms Robinson on behalf of the Registered Person.
  2. In general, the Committee considered that the Referrer gave evidence to the best of her recollection although there were some details that she could not recall. Her evidence was consistent with the documentation available to the Committee. The Registered Person remained firm that his email and attached fee proposal letter, Health and Safety letter and Memorandum of Professional Charges, dated 16 November 2020, forming his terms of engagement, complied with Standard 4.4 of the Code. Where there was a dispute in the evidence of the Referrer and Registered Person the Committee carefully considered the documentary evidence.
  3. The Committee made the following finding of fact.

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

  1. Standard 4.4 of the Code states that an architect is expected to ensure that before undertaking any professional work they enter into a written agreement with the client which adequately covers the following:

    i. the contracting parties;

    ii. the scope of the work:

    iii. the fee or method of calculating it;

    iv. who will be responsible for what;

    v. any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;

    vi. the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;

    vii. a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by ARB;

    viii. the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed;

    ix. that you have a complaints-handling procedure available on request;

    x. that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to this Code.

  2. The Committee had regard to the terms of engagement attached to an email sent to the Referrer’s husband on 16 November 2020. In this email the Registered Person stated, “Please find attached our fee proposal for your consideration following our meeting.” The email does not refer to the two further attached documents: the health and safety letter and Memorandum of Professional Charges document. The following is stated in the fee proposal letter: “The documents forming the basis of our appointment comprises of this letter and our Memorandum of Professional Charges.”
  3. Although the fee proposal letter of 16 November 2020 invited a signature and date from the Referrer, it was not disputed that a signed and dated copy was not returned to the Registered Person. Instead, the Referrer’s husband replied to the email on 17 November 2020 instructing the Registered Person to proceed “At this stage we would like to proceed with item 1.b of your fee quote. Most importantly given our proposed timescales when do you think you can start work on this as we are very keen to move forward….?”. It was noted in the fee proposal letter that the Referrer’s continuing instructions on the project would amount to an acceptance of the terms and conditions.
  4. The Committee considered that the email of 16 November 2020 including the fee proposal, health and safety letter and Memorandum of Professional Charges, did not amount to a written agreement compliant with the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code. The written agreement was inadequate in a number of material aspects. In coming to its decision, the Committee carefully considered each of the requirements of Standard 4.4.
  5. The Committee was satisfied that the written agreement adequately covered the contracting parties, the scope of the work, the fee and method of calculating it and who will be responsible for what. The Committee was also satisfied the Registered Person detailed relevant constraints and limitations. For example, constraints regarding health and safety, and limitations in relation to expenses and the requirement to appoint a number of consultants in addition to the Registered Person. The Registered Person submitted that had there been any further constraints or limitations as to the scope of the works, these would have been included in the letter.
  6. In relation to the remaining requirements of Standard 4.4, the Registered Person submitted that paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Professional Charges informed the Referrer that the appointment of Page Architects was in accordance with the current edition of the “Conditions of Engagement for the Appointment of an Architect” published by RIBA. In his evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person stated that it was easy to find the document referred to in paragraph 1 on the internet and the Referrer could also have asked Page Architects for the document as Reference Copies are kept on site. He stated that prior to the Covid-19 Pandemic, he would meet clients face to face and a full pack of documents including a reference copy of the latest issue of the RIBA Appointment of an Architect and a copy of the Professional Indemnity insurance statement from the insurers would be provided to a client if they asked or they could look it up. As a result of the Pandemic and inability to undertake these meetings, a decision was made to include a reference to the Conditions of Engagement within the Memorandum of Professional Charges.
  7. In her evidence to the Committee, the Referrer stated that she had focused on the fee proposal letter, that it was likely she did read the Memorandum of Professional Charges but could not recall when. She did not recall discussing the document with the Registered Person and was not provided with a copy of RIBA’s Domestic Professional Services Contract 2018, nor was she signposted to this document or told where she could access it by the Registered Person. When it was put to the Referrer in cross-examination that paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Professional Charges sign posted her to the RIBA document, the Referrer replied that paragraph 1 was “…just a statement…It doesn’t say you can access it here…I have not seen it even today…. It does not say I should familiarise myself with that, just that it exists….I still do not know if that document exists.” In re-examination, the Referrer was asked if there came a time when she did look for the RIBA document. She replied

“no, because I did not see how it was relevant to me. I read it and thought that it is the obligations of an architect. It did not sign post to me something I am concerned about, so I guess that I did not take any action in respect of it. It was not clear to me that I should be concerned about it, but the Registered Person should be.”

  1. The Committee carefully considered the wording of paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Professional Charges. It noted the reference is to the current edition of the “Conditions of Engagement for the Appointment of an Architect” published by RIBA. On 15 March 2023 the Registered Person provided the ARB with the document referred to in paragraph 1. This document is titled RIBA’s Domestic Professional Services Contract 2018. In the Committee’s view there was a distinct difference in wording between the document referred to in paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Professional Charges and the document subsequently provided by the Registered Person to the ARB. When it was put to the Registered Person in cross examination that the Referrer could not be expected to have the same level of knowledge as an architect to know which is the correct document, he replied “they can email us…they have been signposted, they can ask.” When asked further in cross examination how a lay client is to know that they are looking at the recent version of the document referred to in paragraph 1 as the edition provided is dated 2018 and the email forming the terms of engagement was dated 16 November 2020, the Registered Person replied, “well it is on the website, they could have asked us”.
  2. The Committee was not satisfied that paragraph 1 in the Memorandum of Professional Charges was compliant with Standard 4.4 of the Code for the following reasons: the wording of the document referred to in paragraph 1 was different to the title of the document subsequently provided by the Registered Person, the current edition was not referenced, and the date of the document was not referenced. The Referrer had not been sign posted to the relevant document, and no reference copy was provided either by an invite to the Referrer to attend Page Architects offices, or via email or a paper copy in the post. In the Committee’s view a lay client who had read paragraph 1 would struggle to locate RIBA’s Professional Services Contract 2018. The Referrer’s evidence was that she did not know the relevance of the document referred to in paragraph 1, so it was unlikely that she would have asked for the document as suggested by the Registered Person.
  3. Although the Committee was directed by the Registered Person in his witness statement to RIBA’s Professional Services Contract 2018, he did not make clear in his evidence which terms from this document would apply to ensure compliance with Standard 4.4. Had the Referrer located the document, she would have had to look at the various clauses in the document and then ask the Registered Person whether they applied. It was the Respondent’s responsibility to ensure that the terms of engagement he uses are compliant with the requirements of the Code.
  4. Having concluded that paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Professional Charges did not sign post the Referrer to the correct document and therefore did not comply with Standard 4.4, the Committee considered what other evidence there was to support the Registered Persons compliance with standard 4.4 of the Code.
  5. In relation to the requirement for a statement regarding adequate and appropriate insurance cover, the Registered Person stated that insurance certificates were on display when the Referrer attended Page Architects offices for meetings with Ms MG. The Referrer recalls attending Page Architects but cannot say for certain that she saw the insurance certificates on display. It was not clear to the Committee whether the Referrer attended Page Architects following Ms MG’s departure in early 2020. In any event the Committee notes that the requirement in Standard 4.4 is for a written agreement to be provided which adequately covers a statement that the Registered Person has adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by the ARB. This statement was not included in the Registered Person’s email and attached documents of 16 November 2020.
  6. In relation to the requirement that the written agreement covers that the Registered Person has a complaint handling procedure available on request, the Referrer stated that she was not aware she could ask the Registered Person for a copy of Page Architects complaints handling procedure. The Registered Person submitted that the Referrer should have contacted him and asked for a copy of the document referred to in paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Professional Charges. The Committee has already determined that paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Professional Charges is insufficient and does not comply with Standard 4.4. The availability of a complaints handling procedure being available on request was not included in the Registered Persons email and attached documents of 16 November 2020.
  7. In relation to the requirement that a Registered Person is registered with the ARB and subject to its Code, the Registered Person submitted that registration with the ARB is shown on Page Architects website and displayed in their meeting rooms. This did not comply with Standard 4.4 which requires both registration with the ARB and being subject to its Code to be adequately covered in a written agreement with the Referrer.
  8. There was a professional obligation on the Registered Person to enter into a written agreement with the Referrer which adequately covered the matters listed in Standard 4.4 of the Code. For all the above reasons, the Committee concluded that the email of 16 November 2020 and the accompanying fee proposal letter, health and safety letter and Memorandum of Professional Charges document did not provide adequate details in relation to the following necessary requirements of Standard 4.4:

i. the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;

ii. a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by ARB;

iii. the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed;

iv. that you have a complaints-handling procedure available on request;

v. that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to this Code.

  1. Having found as a matter of fact that the Registered Person did not signpost the Referrer to what he believed was the ‘correct’ document, the Committee did also conclude that providing access to a blank, unamended, 38 page RIBA Domestic Professional Services Contract would not have complied with Section 4.4 of the ARB Code.  For example, that document makes no mention of the Registered Person’s complaints procedure or that he is registered with ARB and subject to the Code.  Nor does it contain a statement that the Registered Person has adequate and appropriate insurance.
  2. Accordingly, the Committee finds the particular to support the allegation proved and that the Registered Person acted in breach of Standard 4.4 of the Code.
  3. Having found the allegation proved, the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct amounts to unacceptable professional conduct.

 

Finding on Unacceptable Professional Conduct

  1. In the Committee’s view, it is a fundamental requirement that an architect complies with Standard 4.4 of the Code. Clear and comprehensive terms of engagement are necessary to provide clarity and to inform both parties of their rights and responsibilities. The public would have an expectation that the terms of engagement they receive from a registered architect would comply with the ARB’s Code. They would expect that all relevant issues which may arise are covered so that they know what to do if anything goes wrong. Where a project goes wrong then matters such as registration with the ARB and being subject to its Code, the complaints handling procedure and the steps that can be taken in relation to resolving disputes, and a statement of insurance, are all important considerations.
  2. In the present case, the Referrer did not have adequate written terms of engagement to refer back to when issues did arise to identify the options available to her either under any complaint handling process or dispute resolution process in place or by way of complaint to the ARB. The Committee noted the had Referrer attempted to negotiate a price reduction with the Registered Person due to her dissatisfaction with the services provided by Page Architects. The Registered Person replied to the Referrer stating “this whole exercise of yours has been purely to seek a discount from Page Architects…”. The Referrer refuted this and told the Registered Person that she had expressed dissatisfaction about Page Architects services a number of times and had provided the Registered Person opportunities to address the concerns. This did not happen. Had there been an adequate written agreement detailing the complaints handling procedure and options for alternative dispute resolution, matters may have been resolved. Instead, the Referrer undertook her own research. She told the Committee “I knew that he must be regulated in some way and I went onto the Page Architect website and found the ARB’s details…”. In her witness statement, the Referrer states “I decided to complain as the Registered Person was so rude and dismissive to the issues which occurred within the project.” Had the written terms adequately covered that the Registered Person was registered with the ARB and subject to its Code, the Referrer would not have had to search the Registered Person’s website to establish that he was regulated by the ARB.
  3. The Committee considered that the failure to provide the Referrer with adequate written terms and conditions was a serious failing because it left the Referrer without essential information. When things went wrong the Referrer was not in possession of information relating to complaints procedures, alternative dispute resolution procedures and regulation by the ARB. A failure to provide adequate information as required by Standard 4.4 of the Code can properly be considered to be UPC.

 

Decision on Sanction

ARB Submissions

  1. Ms Sheridan reminded the Committee of the purpose of sanction. She drew the Committee’s attention to ARB’s Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance (“SG”), and submitted that it should have regard to the relevant factors outlined in the SG when assessing the level of sanction. Ms Sheridan submitted that it would be a rare occurrence to impose no disciplinary order where a finding of UPC had been made. She stated that a sanction at the lower end of the scale of seriousness was appropriate in this case. Ms Sheridan asked the Committee to consider the Registered Person’s insight and remediation. She submitted that the Registered Person has some insight, but this insight is not fully developed. She referred the Committee to paragraph 27 of this determination. Ms Sheridan referred to the case of Bolton v. Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 in which it was stated that personal mitigation carries less weight and the reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member.

 

Registered Person’s Submissions

  1. Ms Robinson submitted that the Registered Person accepts the Committee’s decision on facts and UPC. She referred the Committee to the positive testimonials submitted on the Registered Person’s behalf and stated that these testimonials speak highly of his work and integrity. She reminded the Committee that there are no previous findings or referrals of the Registered Person to ARB. Regarding insight and remediation, Ms Robinson submitted that the Registered Person has demonstrated insight, and for the Committee to have regard to paragraphs 12 to 14 of his witness statement.
  2. Ms Robinson submitted that the Registered Person has reflected and taken these proceedings seriously, he has fully engaged and put measures in place to prevent a recurrence of events. Ms Robinson explained that these measures ensure compliance with Standard 4.4 of the Code and include amendments to the fee proposal letter sent to the client to include a statement in relation to insurance and reference to registration with the ARB and being subject to its Code. The letter also states that termination of the contract and alternative dispute resolution and complaints handling procedures can be found in an attached terms and conditions document in which these aspects of Standard 4.4 are overtly set out. In addition to these measures the Registered Person also includes web links in his terms of engagement documents to his website, and details of his registration with the ARB have been added to the footer below his email signature.
  3. Ms Robinson submitted that the Registered Person has taken his professional obligations and adherence to the Code seriously. She reminded the Committee that this was not an architect who did not have any written terms of engagement in place. Ms Robinson submitted that the risk of repetition was extremely low, and that having had regard to all the circumstances, the Registered Person’s case can be properly considered a rare case where no sanction is required. However, if the Committee was minded to impose a sanction, then the appropriate and proportionate sanction was one of reprimand having regard to the factors set out in the SG.
  4. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to the Sanctions Guidance (2022) published by ARB and accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair. The Committee exercised its own independent judgement.
  5. The Committee reminded itself that the primary purpose of sanction is to protect members of the public, to maintain the integrity of the profession, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and competence. It has borne in mind that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. It has taken into account the Registered Person’s interests and the need to act proportionately.
  6. The Committee noted that the Act does not require the Committee to impose a sanction in every case where a guilty finding is reached. If it decides to impose a sanction, then the sanctions available to the Committee are:

    i. Reprimand;

    ii. Penalty order;

    iii. Suspension (for a maximum of two years); and

    iv. Erasure

  7. In accordance with the SG, the Committee considered the seriousness of the case along with any aggravating and mitigating factors. The Committee determined that the Registered Person had begun to show some insight into the matters found proved and that he has viewed these proceedings seriously. Ms Robinson described the remedial steps undertaken by the Registered Person to ensure his compliance with Standard 4.4 of the Code. This included amending the fee proposal letter and adding a fourth document titled “terms and conditions” which overtly referenced the remaining aspects of Standard 4.4 not detailed in the first three documents. The Committee was not provided with the revised fee proposal letter and the terms and conditions document. However, it considered that the steps taken by the Registered Person, as described by Ms Robinson on his behalf, demonstrated that significant remediation had already taken place as the revised fee proposal letter and the terms and conditions document was in circulation to clients. Further, the Committee noted in the email correspondence of 15 March 2023 between the Registered Person and the ARB (as referenced in paragraph 4 above), that “ARB” appears next to the Registered Person’s name in his email signature. There was  no reference to ARB in the Registered Person’s email correspondence with the Referrer in 2021. Having considered the steps taken by the Registered Person, the Committee was satisfied that there is a low risk of repetition.
  8. The Committee then considered whether to impose a sanction, and if so, which one. The Committee had regard to the public interest, which includes the need to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the profession and ARB and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, behaviour and competence. The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions made during the course of this hearing.
  9. The Committee considered first whether it would be appropriate to impose no sanction. In the Committee’s view the level of seriousness of the Registered Person’s conduct was at the low end of the scale of seriousness. However it was not so low as to render it unfair or disproportionate to impose a sanction. Furthermore, there were no exceptional circumstances to justify such an approach.
  10. The Committee then considered whether a reprimand would reflect the seriousness of its findings. The Committee took into account the Registered Person’s previous good disciplinary history and the isolated nature of his conduct in relation to one client in the course of his professional career that spanned over two decades. The conduct did not call into question the Registered Person’s practice and competence as an Architect. Furthermore, the conduct was not deliberate.
  11. The Committee determined that the Registered Person had shown some insight and, significantly, had already put measures in place to remedy the deficiencies in his written terms of engagement. The Committee determined that the risk of repetition was at the lower end of the scale. The Committee determined that a reprimand would be a proportionate disciplinary response.
  12. As a check on its decision, the Committee considered whether the imposition of a penalty order would be appropriate. The Committee considered whether the imposition of a penalty order would serve as an effective reinforcement of the importance of the Registered Person reviewing his written terms of engagement. However, the Committee determined that such an approach, in light of the Registered Person’s remediation as described by Ms Robinson and some insight into his failings, would be disproportionate. Further, the Registered Person did not financially benefit from his conduct and in the view of the Committee his failings could be adequately responded to with a Reprimand.
  13. The Registered Person is accordingly reprimanded for his conduct. The Reprimand will remain on the Registered Person’s record and will be published on ARB’s website for one year from the date of this determination.

Download this page as a PDF