Mr Joan Manuel Barrera Beltri

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

JOAN MANUEL BARRERA BELTRI (077045K)

Held as a virtual hearing on:

22-26, 29-30 June and 24 July 2026

_______________

Present:
Andrew Lewis (Committee Chair)
Stuart Carr (PCC Architect Member)
Peter Baker (PCC Lay Member)
_______________

In this case, the ARB was represented by Mr John Greany, counsel, (“the Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley solicitors.

Mr Joan Manuel Barrera Beltri (“the Registered Person”) attended part of the hearing and was not represented.

The Professional Conduct Committee (“the Committee”) determined that the Registered Person is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct (“UPC”). It did so, having found the following particulars of the Allegation proved:

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

4. The Registered Person did not carry out his work within the remit of his knowledge and carried out works that he was not trained to do;

6. The Registered Person used inappropriate and abusive language in his communications with a) The Referrers; and b) The ARB.

and that by doing so, he acted in breach of namely Standards 1.2, 2.1, 4.4, 6.1, and 9.2 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”).

The sanction imposed by the Committee is an Erasure.

The allegation made against the Registered Person is that he is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) relies upon the following particulars in support of the allegation

The Registered Person did not provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code;
The Registered Person did not ensure that the build was in accordance with Building Control;
The Registered Person carried out works without obtaining adequate approval from the relevant Local Authority;
The Registered Person did not carry out his work within the remit of his knowledge and/or carried out works that he was not trained to do;
The Registered Person did not carry out his work with due skill and care in relation to fire safety on site;
The Registered Person used inappropriate and/or abusive language in his communications with:

a) The Referrers; and/or
b) The ARB

Preliminary matters

At the outset of the hearing, the Committee decided of its own motion that where matters relating to the Registered Person’s health were mentioned, those matters would be held in private. The reasons for this decision are set out in Annex A.
The Registered Person attended at the beginning of the hearing but absented himself at a number of times during the hearing. On each occasion, the Committee decided to either grant a short adjournment or continue with the hearing in the absence of the Registered Person. The reasons for those decisions are set out in Annex B.
Directions were given in advance of the hearing to enable the Registered Person to advance an application to stay the proceedings on the basis; first, that the ARB did not have jurisdiction to hear his case because he was not acting as an architect at the time of the events giving rise to the allegation in this case, and secondly, that he could not have a fair hearing.
The Registered Person told the Committee that he was no longer concerned that he would not have a fair hearing. He also accepted that the issue of whether or not he was acting as an architect could only be decided after the Committee had heard all the evidence. Accordingly, he abandoned the preliminary application to stay the proceedings.
The Committee has dealt with the issue of jurisdiction, where necessary, below. The Committee will return to this question, at the next stage of these proceedings, in particular with relation to particular 6 of the allegation.
The ARB applied at the start of the hearing to admit the evidence of Mr Patrick Broggan, an architect instructed by the Referrers to complete work after their contract with the Registered Person was terminated. That application was adjourned and arrangements were made for Mr Broggan to attend and give evidence to the Committee.

Background

Joan Manuel Barrera Beltri (the Registered Person) is an architect first registered with the ARB in 2010. He is also registered as an architect in Spain. In the UK he practices in a self-employed capacity, on occasions through a company known as Archiproject Limited.
In August 2024 he was engaged by Ms. Caroline Sampietro, a Registered Nurse, and her husband Dr Jaume Escoda-Francoli, an Oral Surgeon Dentist, (the Referrers). On 4 July 2024, they had purchased a grade 2 listed building in Winchester (the Site) which they wished to convert from a bridal shop into an aesthetic clinic with a reception area and a number of treatment rooms (the Project).
In September 2024 the Registered Person produced a set of technical drawings for which he submitted invoices on 2 August and 19 September 2024, through Archiproject Ltd.
On 19 September 2024 the Registered Person sent to the Referrers a contract entitled “Building Contract” on which the parties were Archiproject Ltd and Winchester Aesthetics Ltd, a company of which Ms. Sampietro was a director. That contract was never signed.
The Services to be provided under the contract included “Refurbishment of shop according to Project provided also the design” and divided into a number of stages.
The Referrers understood they had instructed the Registered Person as their architect to produce drawings for the Project, make all necessary applications for building regulations approval and planning permission and to supervise the Project.
The Registered Person began work on the Project, submitted an application for building regulations approval on 19 August 2024, engaged directly with the Building Control Officer of Winchester Council, made various enquiries regarding the building’s listed status and advised the Referrers that “No works affecting the original structure can be done without the approval from Heritage”.
Throughout September, October and early November, various works were carried out in respect of the Project, including electrical work, the installation of a boiler and the erection of various partitions. There is no dispute that subcontractors were employed by the Registered Person on the Project, including a company who installed a new boiler on the Site.
Disputes arose between the Referrers and the Registered Person, often centred around which work he should subcontract and which work he should carry out himself. In November 2024, there was a dispute about whether the Registered Person should instruct plumbers to deal with a leak from a pipe, which was discovered after the installation of the new boiler by the subcontractors. On 24 November 2024, the Referrers terminated the Registered Person’s contract, and he was removed from the Project.
On 28 November 2024, Winchester Council formally rejected the application for building regulations approval made by the Registered Person, on the grounds that the plans submitted contained “insufficient information”.
The Referrers subsequently engaged another architect to complete the Project. That architect revised the plans and submitted an application for listed building consent for his revised plans. It is apparent that Winchester Council required an application for retrospective approval of the works already carried out by the Registered Person. That application was made on 8 April 2025 and granted in full.
The Referrers began legal proceedings for the return of fees they had paid and eventually submitted their claim to an adjudication by an arbitrator appointed by RIBA.
On 25 April 2025, the Referrers made a formal complaint to the ARB.
Throughout the remainder of 2025, the Registered Person communicated with both Referrers and the ARB, by email, telephone calls and voice messages. A number of those messages are alleged to have been either insulting, threatening or otherwise inappropriate.

Evidence

The Committee had the following documents before it.

– The “Report to the PCC”, which contained a written statement of the ARB’s case;
– A “Final Hearing Bundle” of 1466 pages from the ARB which included but was not limited to the following:

Witness statements from each of the Referrers;
Witness statements from two employees of the ARB who received communications from the Registered Person;
A bundle of documentation and correspondence relating to the Project. Reference to individual documents is made, where appropriate, in the body of the Committee’s decision.

– A further bundle of eleven pages comprising correspondence between the Registered Person, Winchester Council the Referrers and a member of ARB staff.

– A bundle of 1181 pages from the Registered Person, served shortly before the start of the hearing. This contained, but was not limited to:

- A RIBA certificate dated 5 July 2023, showing that the Registered Person had successfully passed the RIBA Health and Safety Test;
- A defence statement of 9 pages;
- An email dated 28 May 2026 from the Registered Person to the ARB setting out his belief that he was not acting as an architect when carrying out work for the Referrers and arguing that the ARB had no jurisdiction to hear his case.
- An email from the Registered Person to the ARB dated 9 June 2026, in response to case management directions;
- Various documents outlining objections to the use of a report by Mr Broggan an architect subsequently instructed by the Referrers to complete work on the Project;
- A revised defence statement setting out the Registered Person’s position as follows: “the final bundle does not cure the core evidential difficulty: the ARB case conflates a commercial refurbishment dispute, a construction adjudication, later client complaints, and disciplinary allegations against an architect.”

– A bundle of 39 pages marked Defence documents redacted;
– A bundle of 667 pages marked emails redacted. The Committee refers to individual documents if they have been referred to by the parties or otherwise became relevant;
– An email dated 5 September 2025 from Winchester Council to the Registered Person;
– Emails from the Registered Person to the ARB on 26 June 2026

- seeking a “stay” and referred to in Annex B;
- Providing further information about Dr Escoda-Francoli (one of the Referrers). The Committee examined these documents and was satisfied they were not relevant to its work.

The Committee also heard evidence from the following witnesses:
- Caroline Sampietro
- Dr Jaume Escoda-Francoli
- Viviana Schejtman
- Helen Ransome
- Mr Patrick Broggan
The Committee received submissions from the Presenter, who set out the relevant law and the matters that the ARB relied on in respect of each of the particulars of the allegation. The Committee sets out those submissions, where appropriate, when dealing with each particular in turn.
The Committee also received legal advice from the Chair, which it followed in its approach to the allegation. The Committee summarises that advice as follows.
The Chair advised the Committee that the burden of proof lies on the ARB and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The Registered Person does not have to prove or disprove anything.
The Committee must not speculate but can draw inferences from facts it has found proved. When drawing an inference, it should set out the facts it has found proved, the inferences it has drawn and explain why it has drawn them.
The Committee does not have to resolve every disputed fact in this case only those that are necessary to enable it to reach a decision on the particulars of the allegation.
When assessing the evidence of witnesses, the Committee should remember that memory is fallible and not place undue reliance upon memory or demeanour. It should compare the evidence of witnesses with contemporaneous documents and start from the position that such documents are likely to be the most reliable source of evidence.
The Committee should consider each particular of the allegation separately. It does not follow that if it finds one particular of the allegation proved, it must find others proved.
When considering Particular 6, if the Committee finds one alleged communication proved to the required standard, by reason of the evidence relating directly to it, the Committee may use that finding as evidence in respect of another communication if it is satisfied that it is sufficiently connected and similar to the subsequent communication to satisfy it that the Registered Person has a propensity to act as alleged.
If satisfied that there is no risk of collusion, the Committee may take into account that the Referrers describe receiving communications that are similar to those received by the two employees of the ARB, and ask itself whether that is likely to be a coincidence or evidence supporting the allegation that the Registered Person sent the communications alleged.
When assessing the Registered Person’s evidence, the Committee should remember that he is a man of good character, against whom there have been no previous adverse findings. The Committee should have regard to this first because good character makes it less likely that the Registered Person would behave as alleged, and more likely that he would tell the truth when giving evidence. How much weight the Committee gives to the Registered Person’s good character is a matter for the Committee.

The Committee’s approach to the witnesses

The Committee deals with the details of their evidence, where appropriate. Nevertheless, the Committee wished to set out at this stage the view it formed of each of the witnesses by comparing their evidence to the contemporaneous documents put before the Committee and all the other evidence.
The Committee found that Ms. Sampietro was an honest witness who did her best to assist the Committee. Her evidence was consistent and consistent with the contemporaneous documents that were available.
Nevertheless, the Committee reminded itself that Ms. Sampietro was not experienced in building matters and was often relying on her understanding of what others had said and her recollection of conversations she had not recorded at the time.
The Committee observed, in particular, that she believed that the Registered Person’s work had to be demolished because Winchester County Council had insisted. However, Mr. Broggan told the Committee that the decision to demolish much of the Registered Person’s work within the building was his decision because it made it easier to carry out the better work that he planned. He also acknowledged that removing partitions inserted by the Registered Person cost somewhere in the region of £3,000-£4,000.
Accordingly, the Committee did not readily rely upon her understanding of what others had told her.
The evidence of Dr Escoda-Francoli was often supported by photographs and was largely unchallenged. The Committee was satisfied that his recollection of the communications he received from the Registered Person was accurate and supported by recordings made at the time.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Broggan was a straightforward and honest witness who did his best to assist the Committee whenever he could. He answered all the questions that were asked of him, even when the Registered Person appeared very angry. He also made an appropriate concession that Ms. Sampietro may have misunderstood the reason that some of the Registered Person’s work had to be demolished.
The Committee was satisfied that both Ms. Schejtman and Ms. Ransome were honest and reliable witnesses. Their recollections were always couched in restrained and moderate terms and supported by contemporaneous records and events.
The Registered Person’s evidence was difficult to assess as a whole. He found it hard to stick to a point, quickly became agitated and angry, and periodically left the hearing.
When giving evidence about his work on the Site, in particular, about the frequency with which he consulted the building control officer, his evidence was borne out by contemporaneous emails. At other times, his recollection of his professional relationship with the Referrers and his recollection of what he did on the Site, conflicted with other objective evidence. He purported to remember emails and WhatsApp messages that he was unable to produce (even when asked to point out relevant documents by the Committee).
When the Registered Person was asked to focus on the evidence relating to Particular 6, he became agitated, interrupted questions, shouted, used obscene language and periodically left the hearing.
For these reasons, the Committee approached the Registered Person’s evidence with caution and felt able to accept it only when it was supported by other evidence.

The Allegations

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

The Committee reminded itself of the provisions of Standard 4.4, which provides that:

(a) You are expected to ensure that before you undertake any professional work you have entered into a written agreement with the client which adequately covers:

the contracting parties;

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

Sampietro’s evidence is that she instructed the Registered Person to act as the architect for the Project on 2 August 2024. Her evidence was that she understood the architectural work to involve preparing the plans for the Project and obtaining the permissions and permits as required.
Her evidence was that the Registered Person had visited the property in July 2024, and he had said he could make all the necessary applications and subcontract the building works. Her evidence was that he said he would do the architectural work and then find other professionals, such as electricians, plumbers, and carpenters, to do the other work. He would act as “Head of the Project.”
The Registered Person acknowledged that he was instructed to work on the Project but says that he was not instructed as an architect but as a contractor. He submitted that, in any event, the documentation that he provided was sufficient to comply with Standard 4.4.
The Committee is satisfied that it is accepted that the discussions between Ms. Sampietro and the Registered Person, are not reduced to or recorded in writing. The Registered Person gave evidence that he had sent a WhatsApp message to Ms. Sampietro, saying at the outset that he did not wish to be the architect on the Project. However, that message was not made available to the Committee among over a thousand pages of documents that the Registered Person submitted.
Nevertheless, the Committee observed that the Registered Person had recorded this view after the termination of his contract with the Referrers, in an email he sent on 6 February 2025, in which he said: “I do not think that I was contracted as an architect. I drew plans, but I was not involved in the design. Ms. Sampietro sends instructions on drawings departing from a previous Project started by another architect…”
The Committee has already indicated that it found Ms. Sampietro to be an honest witness, doing her best to recall what happened. Nevertheless, it acknowledged that Ms. Sampietro was neither legally qualified nor an architect and may not always appreciate the quality of work or the legal status of the parties. The Committee also observed that the Registered Person was, by February 2025, looking back on a contract that had been terminated.
The Committee also had regard to an email to the ARB from the Registered Person dated 23 July 2025. It begins, “This document is submitted in compliance with the ARB’s request to consolidate all responses into a single comprehensive format.”
Accordingly, the Committee examined the documentation that was put before it.
It saw first the invoice from the Registered Person dated 2nd August 2024, which provided that the amount due was £1,000. The description on the invoice is “first payment 50% for Building Regulations Plans for Aesthetic Clinic in Winchester.”
The second document is dated 19 September 2024 and headed Building Contract. The contract was never signed by either party and purports to be an agreement between the Registered Person’s company, through which he provided the technical drawings, and a company of which Ms. Sampietro is a shareholder and director. That document outlines the services to be provided, which include:

Refurbishment of the shop according to the Project provided
and also the design
It purports to split the Project into four stages, although it lists seven stages from waste removal to electrical work, partitioning and carpentry.

The third document is an invoice from the Registered Person dated 19 September 2024 which provided that the amount due was £500 as a “Final payment for plans Aesthetic clinic.”
The Committee analysed these documents and came to the following conclusions. First, it was satisfied that they supported Ms. Sampietro’s evidence that she engaged the Registered Person as an architect and he continued to work as an architect when he entered into these agreements and continued to work under the arrangements with Ms. Sampietro.
The Committee came to this conclusion for the following reasons. It acknowledged that the building contract contains other work, beyond architectural work. Nevertheless, there is no dispute that the Registered Person was an architect at all relevant times. He undertook to provide technical drawings, which is work undertaken by an architect. The documentation shows that he remained responsible for design under the contract, which is also work undertaken by an architect.
The Committee was satisfied that this view is supported by an email written by the Registered Person on 6 October 2024 to Heritage List Enquiries, in which he stated, “I am an architect doing a Project, an aesthetics clinic. I would like to know if there are any constraints on the building.”
For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that there is no objective evidence that there was a clean break between the Registered Person acting as an architect and a contractor and all the evidence points to the Registered Person acting as an architect throughout.
Accordingly, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person was obliged to comply with Standard 4.4 of the Code.
The Committee observed that the documentation provided by the Registered fell short of the requirements of standard 4.4 in the following respects:
- The documentation referred to above was not provided before the Registered Person began work, in circumstances where the Registered Person had engaged in discussions on site and preparatory work since July 2024;
- The documentation does not deal with the Registered Person’s role in respect of obtaining any necessary permissions, in circumstances where the Registered Person undertook such work and identified himself as an architect while doing so;
- The document does not set out the scope of work and fees beyond stage 1;
- The stages of work are not properly defined;
- There is no provision regarding the responsibilities, constraints or limitations on the parties;
- There is no provision for suspension or termination of the agreement;
- The documentation does not set out a statement that the Registered Person had adequate and appropriate insurance;
- There is no provision for a complaints handling procedure;
- There is no statement that the Registered Person is registered with the ARB and subject to the code.
Accordingly, the Committee found Particular 1 of the allegation proved.

(a) The Registered Person did not ensure that the build was in accordance with Building Control. Found Proved.

The Committee observed that, although the allegation is purely narrative and does not allege any failure, the particulars upon which the ARB relies are that the Registered Person submitted an inadequate building control application (also described in the documents as an application for building regulations approval) and allowed work to commence on site without building control approval.
In support of this allegation, the ARB relied upon documentation which shows that although the Registered Person applied for building regulations approval on 19 September 2024, that application was rejected on 28 November 2024 on the grounds that “Insufficient information has been provided to show compliance with the Building Regulations.”
The Registered Person gave evidence that he had been in close contact with the building control officer throughout the Project, who had raised no objection to the work he was doing.
In his written response to the ARB, dated 21 July 2025, the Registered Person said: “I strongly refute the assertion that I failed to ensure that the build was in accordance with building control.” He added that on 13 December 2024, “he received an email from a Building Control Officer who had physically attended the site and confirmed that, based on the work inspected, there were no significant objections at that stage.” He also acknowledged that, “It is true that the Building Regulations application was not formally approved due to later administrative deficiencies, namely delays in supplying additional requested documents. However, this was not due to incompetence or negligence, but to the nature of the engagement. I was operating under pressure from the client to move works forward quickly”.
For the sake of completeness, the Committee records that it also saw: a defence statement from the Registered Person, dated 4 March 2026, in which he added that “the allegation is denied as UPC”. In a subsequent email to the ARB, dated 9 June 2026, the Registered Person added: “The issue should not be characterised as if there had been no building control route or no engagement with building control at all.”
The Committee approached the allegation as follows. First, it acknowledged that the Registered Person fully engaged with Building Control. It observed that not only had he made a full application for building regulations approval but also had applied for a Building Notice on 18 August 2024.
The Committee also accepted that the Registered Person had conversations with the Building Control Officer on the Site. The Committee is satisfied that this is borne out by the emails which the Registered Person sent to Ms. Sampietro. It is also borne out by the evidence of Mr. Broggan that the local authority asked him to submit building control applications in writing because it had spent too much time on the Site when the Registered Person was in charge of the Project.
The Committee is not in a position to make any findings about what exactly was agreed on Site, and it has not seen the email which the Registered Person said he received in December 2024. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that the Registered Person engaged with the Building Control process.
Having read the allegation with care, the Committee concluded that an applicant for building regulations approval has only ensured that a build has that approval when they receive formal notification from the local authority. In this case, the Registered Person had not obtained that approval before his agreement was terminated, and one of the reasons for that was that he had made what he himself effectively acknowledged was an inadequate application.
The Committee accepted that there may well be considerable force in the Registered Person’s submission that he could have rectified all the matters outstanding on the application for building regulations approval and was only prevented from resolving them by the termination of his agreement. That is something which the Committee will consider at stage two when deciding what, if any, contribution this allegation makes to any finding of UPC.
The Committee considered the second limb of the ARB’s allegation comment, namely that the Registered Person had carried out works without waiting for final building regulations approval. The Committee makes it clear that it is satisfied that it is not necessarily wrong for an architect to continue with works before final approval is given, as long as they engage with the building control department.
The Committee is satisfied there is no evidence to the contrary in this case. It is also satisfied that this is a conclusion it is entitled to come to on the basis of its experience and knowledge as a specialist Committee.
Nevertheless, to the limited extent set out above, the Committee finds Particular 2 of the allegations proved.

(3) The Registered Person carried out works without obtaining adequate approval from the relevant Local Authority. Found Proved

The ARB’s case is that the Registered Person undertook work on a Grade 2 listed building without obtaining listed building consent.
There is no dispute that after the Registered Person’s contract was terminated, the architects who replaced him made a retrospective application for planning and listed building consent before making a subsequent application for consent to carry out additional works.
The Registered Person’s case is simply that no listed building consent was required for the work he did, and that is demonstrated by the fact that retrospective consent was given by the local authority.
The Committee had regard to the following documents provided by the Local Authority.
The Committee had regard to the document headed Planning Consultation Comments dated 4 June 2025 from the Historic Environment Officer and in particular the following passages (the underlining is added by the Committee):

Removal of Fixtures and Fitting

Removal of the previous reception desk and built-in shelving units. These were modern additions of no historic significance; however, their removal still required review under listed building regulations.

Installation of new partition walls

Erection of new internal partitions within the ground floor shop area. Although the impact on historic fabric is low, the new walls still required listed building consent.

Boiler relocation and creation of external wall opening.

The existing boiler was relocated to a raised position, and a vent opening in the rear masonry wall was removed. This has left an unsealed breach in the rear wall requiring remedial repair using matching bricks and lime mortar

5 Cabling and Pipework Installation

Investigative works revealed some new cabling installations. Although likely routed through existing suspended ceilings, where new routes involved cutting through historic fabric, listed building consent would have been required. This must now be assessed and regularised.

The Committee also had regard to the document granting retrospective planning permission and giving the following reasons:

“The alterations are minor in nature and predominantly relate to the removal of modern fabric and do not affect the historic or architectural interest of the building. The change of plan form is not considered to materially impact the significance of the listed building as the shop area was previously open plan. The removal of the reception desk was a modern addition with no historic interest and its removal does not require listed building consent. The new boiler is located in the rear toilet area, with the external flue lies within a discreet location and therefore is not considered to harm the significance of the listed building”.

The Committee observed and accepted the distinction between the removal of the reception desk, of which the local authority said, “Its removal does not require listed building consent.” And the other work for which consent was given for the reasons set out above.
The Committee concluded that it follows from the reasoning of the Retrospective Grant that a significant part, if not all, of the work undertaken by the Registered Person required prior listed building consent, and this is not changed by the fact that it was subsequently granted retrospectively.
Accordingly, the Committee finds particular 3 of the allegation proved.

(4) The Registered Person did not carry out his work within the remit of his knowledge and/or carried out works that he was not trained to do. Found proved.

The ARB’s case set out in the solicitors’ report to the Professional Conduct Committee, states “The Registered Person did not carry out his work with due skill and care in that he did not carry out work safely.”
The ARB highlighted the cutting of a gas pipe and live electric cables being left exposed on the Site as examples of work the Registered Person had neither the knowledge nor training to do and which put people at risk.
The Committee is satisfied that it can deal with the question of live electric cables quite shortly. The Committee saw photographs of cables hanging down the walls on the Site. The Committee also a photograph taken by Ms. Sampietro shortly after the Registered Person had been dismissed showing an uncovered switchboard with exposed wiring. However, the Committee did not find any evidence that the cables or the wiring in the switchboard were live.
Looking at the evidence as a whole, the Committee found that the ARB had not established that the Registered Person himself undertook electrical work for which he had neither the necessary knowledge nor training, when he was not supervised by a qualified electrician.
However, with regard to the alleged cutting of a gas pipe, the situation is more complicated.
There is no dispute that the Registered Person arranged for a new heating boiler to be installed on the Site in October 2024 and this work was carried out by a company called BOXT.
Sampietro gave evidence that on 20 November 2024 that she received an email from the Registered Person sent at 18:52, which stated: “We have opened the floor where the thermal camera showed a spot of heat and found there is a leak. There is also a gas pipe next to it, and it is in contact with the floor.” A copy of this email was put before the Committee.
The Committee saw an email from Ms. Sampietro, sent later that evening, in which she said, “The pipe needs to be repaired by a skilled commercial plumber as soon as possible.”
The Committee also saw a copy of an email from the Registered Person to Building Control at Winchester Council, dated 21 November 2024 at 07:59 which stated: “We have discovered that the gas pipe runs very close to the chipboard in the ground floor. We would like to know if this is acceptable”. The Registered Person attached a photograph of three pipes running under the floorboards with two pipes very close together on the left-hand side of the photograph and a third a matter of inches to their right.
Dr Escoda-Francoli gave evidence that he attended the site and took photographs. He was able to say that the date he took the photographs was 21 November 2024, by reference to the dates shown on his mobile phone. The Committee saw the photograph that Dr Escoda-Francoli took and is satisfied that it is a photograph of the same pipes shown in the photograph sent by the Registered Person to Winchester Council. However, the Committee saw that by the time Dr Escoda-Francoli took his photographs, all three pipes had been cut.
Sampietro described to the Committee that plumbers called Living Waters Plumbing and Heating attended the property on 25 November 2024. The Committee saw a report contained in an invoice submitted by those plumbers in which they stated:

“we found that a gas pipe upstream of the gas meter had been cut with a multitool. The pipework was live but isolated by use of the ECV at the meter. We tested the supply to ﬁnd there was no meter disc in place and therefore could have caused a serious Gas leak should the valve be accidently opened. We immediately cleaned the pipe and compression capped the feed pipe and also inserted a disc into the meter to make the installation safe.”

The Registered Person gave evidence to the Committee that a new boiler had indeed been installed in November 2024 by a company called BOXT. He told the Committee that he had discovered that there was a leak in the pipes and located that leak by use of his thermal camera. He acknowledged that he had drawn this to Ms. Sampietro’s attention, and she had wanted him to instruct specialist plumbers. However, he was satisfied that he could deal with the problem and opened the floorboards, where he found three pipes so close together that in order to get at the middle pipe, he needed to cut all three pipes. However, he was sure that all three pipes were water pipes leading either into or out of the heating system. He was adamant that he had cut no gas pipes.
Having regard to all this evidence, in particular the email and photographic evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the overwhelming likelihood is that one of the pipes that the Registered Person cut was a gas pipe and that on 21 November 2024 he was aware of that.
The Committee also recalled that the Registered Person gave evidence to the Committee of the experience and training he had in a number of aspects of skilled work, including plumbing. He did not tell the Committee that he had any training or knowledge regarding gas fittings. The Committee was satisfied that it should draw the conclusion that he had no such knowledge or training, and found that this was borne out by the evidence of the way he had cut the pipe and left it in an unsafe state.
Accordingly, the Committee found this particular proved in relation to the Registered Person’s cutting of a gas pipe and leaving it in an unsafe state.

(5) the Registered Person did not carry out his work with due skill and care in relation to fire safety on site. Found not proved.

The ARB relied upon five aspects of fire safety set out in a report, dated 20 February 2025, prepared for the Referrers by Mr. Broggan, the architect who took over the control of the Project after the Registered Person had been dismissed from the Site.
Broggan attended the hearing and gave evidence to the Committee. He explained that the work that he carried out on the Site exceeded the minimum requirements of fire safety and his firm had been complimented on this by the building control officers. He had prepared his report to explain the work that he needed to do to bring the Project up to the high standards to which he worked. He had not prepared the report as an independent expert focusing on regulatory concerns.
The Committee was satisfied that three aspects of Mr. Broggan’s concerns related to the final use of the Site as intended by the Referrers: inadequate separation between the basement and ground floor, the distance of over 26 m from the basement to the front of the building (he did not record by how much that distance was exceeded), and the “Verification of travel distance and escape routes, ensuring they meet minimum requirements”.
Nevertheless, the Committee found that there were two matters that concerned “fire safety on site”. These were the means of escape at the rear of the property, which were obstructed by a locked gate, and the removal of the fire detection and alarm system, both for the Site and the wider building beside and above it.
With regard to the locked gate, the Committee decided that this could only be evidence of carrying out work without due skill and care in relation to fire safety on site if there were evidence that the gate remained locked during the time when people were working on the Site. The Committee observed that there was no evidence of this, adduced by the ARB.
The Committee also acknowledged that there were potential concerns about the fire alarm system. Ms. Sampietro attended the Site and found that “ringers” had been removed and was told by people, who were never identified, that this affected the whole building.
The Registered Person’s position was that he had removed what he described as an obsolete system and was going to replace it, but he was removed from the Project before he could.
The Committee observed that there was no evidence before it about how the fire alarms had worked in the past and no evidence about what alternative precautions were in place on site when work was in progress.
Having regard to all of the evidence, the Committee concluded that the ARB had not adduced sufficient evidence to persuade it that work was carried out with the “due skill and care in relation to fire safety on site”.
The Committee wishes it to be clear that this finding is in no sense a criticism of Mr. Broggan, who prepared his report focused upon other matters. Nor is it any criticism of the witnesses who visited the Site. The Committee’s decision is a reflection only on the absence of any independent expert evidence and other background evidence capable of supporting this allegation.
Accordingly, the Committee found this particular allegation not proved.

(6) The Registered Person used inappropriate and/or abusive language in his communications with a) The Referrers; and/or b) The ARB – Found proved

The ARB relied upon the evidence of four witnesses, and it is necessary to set out some of their evidence in detail.
Sampietro gave evidence in general terms of the insulting and inappropriate messages left on the home phone of her and her husband so that eventually they had to disconnect the voicemail. She also gave evidence of the sheer volume of correspondence that she received. She produced copies of 39 emails sent to her on 6 February 2025 and a further 18 sent on 7 February 2025. She described the threatening tone of voice which the Registered Person used when leaving messages.
Sampietro told the Committee that the most disturbing message was not delivered directly to her, but to an employee of the ARB, when the Registered Person said that he would kill her and her daughter. She understood that this was reported to her so that she could take any necessary steps to protect herself and her family. Ms. Sampietro reported the threats to the police in December 2025.
Dr Escoda-Francoli gave more detailed evidence of voicemail and emails he received from the Registered Person. He produced transcripts of two voicemail messages translated into English by a firm of solicitors and an email similarly translated. The Committee has decided that it is necessary to set out the words the Registered Person used:
- In an email dated 3 June 2025, the Registered Person wrote that Dr Escoda-Francoli’s wife was “fucking” two men he named;
- On 5 August 2025, the Registered Person left a voicemail message containing the following insulting language:
  - “I have never come across such a son of a bitch as you”
  - “You’re a bunch of motherfuckers”
  - “If I saw you in the street, I would spit in your face”

He too told the Committee that he had been notified by the ARB that the Registered Person had made a threat against his wife and daughter and how that had made him feel threatened. He also described how insulting messages continued until December 2025 when he received a voicemail calling him, “son of a bitch”, “homosexual”, and “bad son”.
The Committee then heard evidence from two ARB employees. The first was Ms. Schejtman who has been an Investigations Manager since January 2023. She described that she had spoken to the Registered Person on 2 June 2025. She said he had complained about how badly he had been treated by the Referrers and said that he was “was upset and stated that he had suicidal ideations. He stated that he was so angry he would kill the Referrers and their child. He said they are just taking the piss and trying to take advantage.”
She described how she reported her concerns to her colleague, Ms. Ransome, and produced to the tribunal a typed attendance note that she prepared shortly after the telephone call.
Schejtman produced a copy of a further email from the Registered Person on 3 June 2025, in which he stated: “I let Ms. Sampietro know that my only response to any allegation brought by her is that she is a bitch.”
The Committee saw that there were many emails of this sort containing obscene and often sexualized language.
The Committee also heard evidence from Ms. Ransome. She was the ARB Head of Professional Standards in 2024, and since this year has been the Interim Director of Professional Standards.
She told the tribunal that she was informed by Ms. Schejtman on 3 June 2024, of her telephone conversation with the Registered Person the day before. She told the Committee that the nature of the threats was reported to Ms. Sampietro so that she could take any necessary precautions. She described emailing the Registered Person to tell him to refrain from such communications.
She told the tribunal that she received a telephone call that day from the Registered Person in which he sounded distressed and aggressive and said: “I will kill them all. It’s what I will do. Their parents, their family, and their children.” He added that he “Will start the killing.” And “would rather go to jail or die like a professional?” He then told her not to annoy him, or he would “kill everyone and come to the UK to do so.”
She described receiving a similar phone call the following day in which the Registered Person said he was feeling suicidal and wanted to kill someone. Ms. Ransome reported the threats to the police.
She described receiving a number of further emails containing obscene and sexualised language and then received an email which she described as a “Point of escalation.” The Committee saw this email which said:

“Hello Ms. Ransome I am working on an algorithm to create videos of yourself to let the Public know that even though you work at to you work at the ARB, you have no idea of what you are doing. I will use this video if you talking about the Standards.”

She then described receiving a significant number of emails in which she and others were described as “A piece of shit.” And another containing obscene, sexualized language about Ms. Sampietro.
Ransome also drew the Committee’s attention to an email from the Registered Person to her, dated 23 June 2025 in which he said “You can speak with Mr R from Russell Cooke, I told him I would kill her and I was suicidal.”
[HEARD IN PRIVATE SESSION]
The Committee has described this evidence in more detail than it usually would because it is satisfied that it is important to demonstrate the extent and seriousness of the communications received by the four witnesses, of which the examples set out above are a small fraction.
The Committee found it difficult to be sure what the Registered Person’s position was with regard to these communications.
In his defence statement, the Registered Person wrote: “The Registered Person accepts that some communications, viewed objectively and with hindsight, were inappropriate in tone and should not have been sent. He apologises for intemperate language.”
Shortly before he left the hearing, after cross-examination, but before the committee could ask him questions, the Registered Person repeated that he believed that the Committee had no jurisdiction to decide upon the matters alleged at particular 6 because anything he said had been said in Spain to another Spanish person.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the Committee rejects that submission. The Committee is satisfied that it is clear in the Code that its provisions, and in particular those relating to bringing the profession into disrepute, relate to every aspect of an architect’s life, including his personal life.
When he gave evidence, the Registered Person refused to engage with questions about the communications but shouted, swore, and left the hearing. He did not acknowledge that any of the communications were “inappropriate.” He described Ms. Ransome as a “fucking bitch.”
The Committee proceeded on the basis that, although the Registered Person acknowledged the emails he had sent and did not challenge the voice messages that were recorded, he did not accept the threats to kill, which both Ms. Schejtman and Ms. Ransome described hearing on the telephone.
The Committee decided that it accepted their evidence entirely and they were in every respect reliable, honest, and helpful witnesses. In reaching that conclusion, the Committee had regard to the following matters:

- Both witnesses were entirely separate from the dispute that had arisen between the Registered Person and the Referrers. There was nothing to suggest that they had any reason to take sides, much less that they had done so.
- In each case, they had typed attendance notes within a short time of receiving the telephone calls from the Registered Person.

- Ms. Schejtman readily acknowledged that she had not made a contemporaneous handwritten note of the telephone message she received on 2 June 2025 because she was at home when she received the call. Nevertheless, she told the Committee that she had typed the attendance note shortly after the call.

- Ms. Ransome gave evidence that she had made a handwritten note during each of the telephone calls and the Committee accepted this evidence, finding that it was consistent with the careful and conscientious way she had dealt with the whole of this episode.
- [HEARD IN PRIVATE SESSION]

- The threats that they describe are consistent with the contents of the email that the Registered Person sent to Ms. Ransome describing the email he had previously sent to his own solicitors.

- The messages described by Ms. Schejtman and Ms. Ransome are strikingly similar to those received by the Referrers.

Taking all this evidence together, the Committee is satisfied that the Registered Person not only sent all the emails attributed to him but left the voice messages and made the telephone calls described above.
Accordingly, the Committee finds Particular 6 proved.

UNACCEPTABLE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (UPC)

Having found particulars 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the allegation proved the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct (UPC).

Submissions and advice

The Committee invited submissions from the Presenter and the Registered Person.
In written and oral submissions, the Presenter drew the Committee’s attention to section 14(1)(a) of the Architects Act 1997, in which UPC is defined as conduct which falls short of the of the standard required of an architect.
He submitted that the standards expected of an architect are set out in the Code and the general test for the Committee is to consider whether the Registered Person has fallen seriously short of the standard of conduct expected of a member of the profession in the circumstances. What amounts to serious is a matter of judgement for the Committee.
The Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct breached Standards 1.2, 2.1, 4.4, 6.1, and 9.2 of the Architects Code: standards of Professional Conduct and Practice 2017 (the Code). The Committee has set out the provisions of those Standards and their application in its decision below.
He submitted that Particulars 1, 2, 3, and 4 amounted to multiple and fundamental breaches of professional standards for an architect. In relation to Particular 6, the Presenter submitted that the matters proved extended over a significant period of time and involved repeated communications with “wholly disgraceful language”, which had a significant impact on a number of people. He submitted that the Registered Person’s actions would cause architects to be ashamed of his conduct.
The Presenter submitted that the Committee should find that the matters proved amounted collectively and individually to UPC because of their seriousness.
The Registered Person put a number of documents before the Committee, including but not limited to:
- “Professional Evidence Link and Bundle Transmission Report”
- Council Bundle
- Submissions on Health
- Professional Statement in response to the Committee’s findings of fact and stage 2 UPC issues.
The Committee observed that the bulk of the material related to the stage 1 findings, in respect of which, the Registered Person submitted that the Committee had come to the wrong decision and accordingly should not place any weight on the facts that it had found. During the course of submissions, the Committee explained to the Registered Person that it could not go behind the findings of fact that it had made and it would take into account only those matters that related to whether the matters found proved amounted to UPC.
The bundle entitled Submissions on Health contained:

- [REDACTED]
- [REDACTED]

In his written submissions, the Registered Person reminded the Committee that not every adverse finding of fact amounted to UPC. He drew the Committee’s attention to the case of Calhaem v General Medical Council [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin) in which poor performance, negligence or isolated mistakes were distinguished from professional misconduct unless the seriousness threshold is crossed.
He submitted thatthe Committee must be particularly careful when dealing with “private conduct”. He submitted that:

“The question is not whether the regulator disapproves of the conduct in the abstract, but whether there is a proper and proportionate connection with professional practice, public confidence, client protection or the standards of the profession.”

With regard to Particular 1, he submitted that this did not amount to UPC because the true nature of the contract between him and the referrers could not be properly characterised as an “Architect only relationship”. He further reminded the Committee that it should ask itself whether any deficiency was sufficiently serious to amount to UPC because, “A code or paperwork issue is not automatically UPC.”
With regard to particulars 2, 3, and 4, the Registered Person focused his submissions on why the Committee’s findings were incorrect.
With regard to Particular 6, he submitted that it:

“requires a discrete analysis. It is not about Building Control, design, fire safety, gas or construction competence. It concerns alleged language and communications. It therefore raises separate questions of jurisdiction, date, translation, privacy, professional nexus and seriousness.”

He submitted that the Committee did not have jurisdiction over the matters raised in Particular 6 because the ARB standards of behaviour relating to communication only became effective on 1 September 2025.
He further submitted that even if the Committee had jurisdiction, the private Catalan language communication concerning Dr Escoda-Francoli was not offensive in Catalan. It was, he submitted a private conversation in Catalan, “not a professional instruction, design communication, building control document, fire safety statement or ARB submission” He concluded that, “It should not be converted into UPC merely because a hostile or decontextualised English interpretation has been placed upon it.”
He further submitted that his communication with Dr Escoda-Francoli was not made during the course of a professional exchange but was a private matter.
The Committee heard the advice of the Chair which it followed in its approach set out below.

The Committee’s approach

It reminded itself that a ﬁnding of UPC is a matter for its own independent judgment having regard to any facts found proved. There is no burden or standard of proof.
The Committee accepted 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 bore in mind the ARB guidance that UPC is defined as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a Registered Person. In reaching its findings on UPC, 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 give rise to disciplinary proceedings or a finding of UPC.
The general test is whether he or she has fallen seriously short of the standard of conduct expected of a member of the profession in the circumstances.
The conduct found proved must be serious in order for unacceptable professional conduct to be found. The question of what is serious or not in the context is not a technical legal exercise but a question for the skilled judgment of the Professional Conduct Committee.
In deciding whether the facts found proved amount to UPC the Committee also had regard to Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). It bore in mind in reaching its decision 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” was required.
The Committee also took into account the observation made by Kerr J in Shaw v The General Osteopathic Council [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin) that, although the conduct in question must be sufficiently serious, it does not need to be of such gravity that imposing an admonishment would be too lenient.
The Committee also had regard to the case of Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin), which provided that the Committee should look at the picture as a whole when deciding SPI, and by implication, UPC.
The Committee had regard to the following provisions of the Code which apply to all matters on or after January 2017 and until the new code came into force in 2025.

Standard 1.2 which provides:

You should not make any statement which is contrary to your professional opinion or which you know to be misleading, unfair to others or discreditable to the profession.

Standard 2.1 which provides:

2.1 You are expected to be competent to carry out the professional work you undertake to do, and if you engage others to do that work they should be competent and adequately supervised.

Standard 4.4 which provides:

4.4 You are expected to ensure that before you undertake any professional work you have entered into a written agreement with the client which adequately covers:

the contracting parties;
the scope of the work;
the fee or method of calculating it;
who will be responsible for what;
any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;
the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;
a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as speciﬁed by the ARB;
the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed;
that you have a complaints-handling procedure available on request;
that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to the Code.
Standard 6.1 which provides:

6.1 You are expected to carry out your work with skill and care and in accordance with the terms of your engagement.

Standard 9.2 which provides amongst other things.

9.2 You are expected to conduct yourself in a way which does not bring either yourself or the profession into disrepute. If you ﬁnd yourself in a position where you know that you have fallen short of these standards, or that your conduct could reﬂect badly on the profession, you are expected to report the matter to ARB.

Turning to the question of jurisdiction, the Committee reminded itself that it had already found that the Registered Person was acting as an architect when dealing with the matters which form the basis of Particulars 1 to 4.
With regard to the matters giving rise to Particular 6, the Committee first reminded itself of the following provision from the introduction to the Code:

“You are expected to be guided in your professional conduct and professional work by the spirit of the Code as well as by its express terms. The Code also covers your private life where your conduct may affect your ﬁtness to practise as an architect, or public conﬁdence in the profession.”

The Committee also reminded itself that it had found that the communications giving rise to Particular 6 had the following characteristics:

- Some of the communications arose directly from a dispute between the Registered Person and his former clients.
- Many of the more disturbing communications, including threatening to make a video of an ARB employee and threatening to kill one of the referrers and her child, were made directly to ARB employees during these proceedings.

For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that all the matters found proved in Particular 6 are subject to the Code and a Registered Person’s obligation not to act in a way that brings the profession into disrepute.
Before looking at the overall picture, the Committee decided it should examine each of the particulars found proved and decide whether they contributed to a picture of unacceptable professional conduct. The Committee adopted this approach first because the matters found proved cover a wide range of conduct and the Committee took the view that if a sanction is imposed in this case, it should be clear which matters justified that sanction.

The Committee’s decision

Particular 1

The Committee reminded itself that it had already found that the matters found proved under Particular 1 amounted to a breach of standard 4.4. The Committee acknowledged the Registered Person’s submission that not every technical breach of that rule will amount to UPC. Nevertheless, the Committee was satisfied in this case that the breach was serious because it left the parties with no clear understanding of the extent of the Registered Person’s obligations and how disputes should be resolved.
The Committee concluded that a large part of this hearing has been spent arguing about whether the Registered Person was acting as an architect or not at any particular stage of the work in which he was engaged. The Committee was satisfied that this could all have been avoided if the Registered Person had issued an agreement that complied with standard 4.4. In the context of this case, the failure to set out the extent of the Registered Person’s obligations has led to extensive dispute, which is likely to undermine public confidence in architects.

Particular 2

With regard to the Building Control or Building Regulations approval, the Committee reminded itself of the findings it made at stage 1. It accepted that the Registered Person had made the appropriate applications and been in contact with the building control officer throughout his time on site.
The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person’s application had been rejected. Nevertheless, it was not persuaded that the issues could not have been rectified, if the Registered Person had not been dismissed from the project.
In light of the Registered Person having made the appropriate applications and having been dismissed from the project before he could rectify any defects, the Committee concluded that the matters found proved at particular 2 were not sufficiently serious to amount to unacceptable professional conduct either on their own or in the context of the other matters found proved.

Particular 3

The Committee reminded itself that with respect to the listed building consent, the Registered Person had not made a formal application. Nevertheless, the Registered Person had made enquiries of Historic England and advised his clients in writing about the limitations on one aspect of the work they could do without appropriate permission. The Committee also reminded itself that when an application was finally made, the local authority did not require the demolition of any of the work he had done.
The Committee was concerned about this particular because the Registered Person had not in fact made an application for Listed Building Consent. The Committee observed that this was naïve, fell below the standards expected of a competent architect and put his clients at risk of potentially having to carry out expensive remedial work.
Nevertheless, it had regard to his culpability, which was reduced by the inquiries he made and the advice he gave to his clients. It also had regard to the fact that no harm resulted at the end of the day. Taking all those matters into consideration, the Committee concluded that the Registered Persons actions did not fall sufficiently far below the standards required of an architect to amount to UPC.

Particular 4

The Committee reminded itself that the matters proved at Particular 4 arose because the Registered Person had cut through not only two water pipes but also a gas pipe, for which he had neither the training nor knowledge to do safely.
The Committee found at stage 1 that the Registered Person had been aware of the presence of a gas pipe and had been instructed by his client to engage a qualified plumber rather than carry out the work himself. However, he had chosen to cut through the pipes. The Committee has already found that the result was that he had left the Site in a state that was potentially dangerous.
The Committee was satisfied that the matters proved at Particular 4 engage standards 2.1 and 6.1 and also engaged standard 9.2 by reason of the state in which he left the Site.
The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s culpability and the seriousness of his actions, including the dangerous situation he had left on the site, fell so far short of what was expected of an architect as to amount to UPC.

Particular 6

The Committee set out the details of the Registered Person’s messages in the stage 1 decision. The Committee reminded itself that those messages were sent not only to Dr Escoda-Francoli but also Ms. Sampietro and two members of the ARB staff who showed him no animosity and tried only to find him the help they thought he needed as well as taking steps to mitigate the threat they feared he represented to Ms. Sampietro and her child. The Committee accepted the evidence of all the witnesses that they had found the communications from the registered person deeply distressing.
The Committee is satisfied that it is appropriate to describe the Registered Person’s actions as a campaign of harassment, abuse and threats from April until August 2025, when the ARB instructed solicitors to write to the Registered Person. The Committee accepted the detailed accounts given by each witness of the effect of the Registered Person’s actions on them.
The Committee found that these actions arose from complaints made to the ARB and are inextricably linked to the Registered Person’s work as an architect. The Committee found that the matters found proved engaged standards 1.2 and 9.2 of the Code. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s actions and their effect on others bring the profession into disrepute.
Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied that the matters proved at particulars 1, 4 and 6 both individually and taken together amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC).

DECISION ON SANCTION

Having found the Registered Person guilty of UPC, the Committee considered which, if any, sanction to impose.

Preliminary matters at the sanctions hearing

Before dealing with the submissions from the Presenter and the Registered Person the Committee needs to record what occurred before and at the outset of the sanctions hearing.
Before the hearing, the registered person submitted a bundle of documents, including written submissions on sanction. These are listed in more detail below.
At the start of the hearing, the Presenter and the Registered Person appeared before the Committee, and the Chair started to list the documents which the Registered Person had supplied to the Committee since he received the stage 2 determination.
After the Chair had listed four documents, the Registered Person interrupted. He became increasingly agitated and began to shout. He started to refer to the matters giving rise to particular 4 (the cut gas pipe). He said that if there was a danger from that pipe, it arose because of the people who were now working on site and he had reported the matter to Gas Safe. He said that to establish this, he would go there himself and, if necessary, break in. With regard to Particular 1, he said: “Now you listen to me. I don’t care about the contract.”
He then told the Committee that he had had enough and was leaving. For the sake of completeness, the Committee records that he said that the Committee were “Motherfuckers” and added that that was “proportionate.” He then disconnected from the hearing.
The Committee then considered whether it should continue with the hearing in the Registered Person’s absence.
It heard submissions from the Presenter and advice from the Chair.
The Committee concluded that the Registered Person had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing; as he had done on a number of occasions throughout the proceedings. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person had demonstrated he understood the purpose of the hearing by reason of the submissions he had made in writing and the Registered Person was aware that the Committee would continue in his absence because it had made that clear at various stages in the proceedings when he had absented himself.
The Committee also reminded itself that it had extensive written submissions from the Registered Person with supporting documentation.
Taking all these matters into consideration, the Committee concluded that it was in the interests of justice for this hearing to continue so that this matter could be completed without further delay.

Submissions and advice

The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter and considered the written submissions of the Registered Person.
The Presenter told the Committee that the ARB did not seek to persuade the Committee to impose any particular sanction. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance (the SG) and the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, by reference to paragraph 5 of the SG.
The Presenter submitted that the matters found proved were serious and reminded the Committee of its finding at stage 2, that the Registered Person’s conduct found proved under Particular 6 amounted to “a campaign of harassment, abuse and threats from April until August 2025.”
The Presenter reminded the Committee of the correct approach to sanctions including the importance of proportionality (that is to say, the importance of imposing a sanction that is no more restrictive than is necessary to fulfil the purpose of sanctions). He reminded the Committee of the available sanctions and submitted that the Committee should consider each sanction in turn, starting with the least restrictive.
The Presenter drew the Committee’s attention to the relevant paragraphs of the SG and in particular, those relating to suspension and erasure.
The Registered Person did not call further evidence, nor did he make any oral submissions after shouting the abuse recorded above and leaving the hearing.
Nevertheless, the Committee observed that he had placed the following documents before the Committee before the hearing:

- Written submissions on sanction 9 pages with 246 supporting pages;
- [REDACTED]
- 4 video clips of the Site;
- Additional representations 6 pages;
- Further Additional representations served on 23 July 2026 24 pages.

After the Registered Person had left the hearing, he sent a further document to the Committee relating to Particular 4, which the Committee saw while it was deliberating. It was satisfied that there were no matters raised in that document relevant to the issue of sanction.
The Committee then considered the written submissions which the Registered Person had placed before the Committee before the start of the hearing.
In his written submissions, the Registered Person summarised the Committee’s findings at stage 2 and observed that:

“For the purpose of sanction, I recognise that the Committee’s findings formally stand unless overturned through the appropriate process. I reserve my legal rights in relation to the final determination and maintain the disputed positions identified below. That reservation does not diminish the practical safeguards and undertakings I give.”

[HEARD IN PRIVATE SESSION]
The Committee found that a number of the documents served, including the additional representation served on 23 July 2026, did not relate directly to sanction but related to the stage 1 and 2 matters, upon which the Registered Person wishes to reserve his position. The Committee has not referred to those documents during its summary of the Registered Person’s submissions set out below.
With regard to Particular 1, the Registered Person repeated his position with regard to the contract with the referrers and then added the following submissions:

“I recognise, however, that the Committee found the allocation insufficiently clear. Even where a builder contract exists and other designers are involved, I should have created a separate written record defining the limited Building Regulations drawing service and expressly excluding any continuing architect role. I should also have identified each designer’s responsibility and status. I apologise for that lack of clarity”.
“With immediate effect, before I personally assume responsibility for professional architectural work, I will ensure that the relevant practice or employer has a compliant written engagement and responsibility matrix in place. Any change to scope or role will be recorded before further work proceeds.”

With regard to Particular 4 the Registered Person stated that he understood “the seriousness of the Committee’s finding and the public-safety risk it identified. For sanction purposes I recognise that the finding stands. I am sorry for the potentially dangerous situation and for the alarm and concern caused. I nevertheless ask the Committee to take account of the reasonable preventative and investigative steps I took before the event.”
He reminded the Committee that he had used thermal imaging, video, and photographs “To identify the services” and added that he had stopped the relevant works while the concealed services and water leak were being identified and investigated. He took the Committee through the steps he had taken and submitted that,

“These steps are consistent with an attempt to identify and report a concealed danger rather than to conceal it.”

He added:

“I recognise that the Committee did not accept my account as displacing its finding. I rely on these matters only as relevant context for culpability and proportionality, not as a reason to disregard the safety lesson.
The lesson is unequivocal. If a service is unidentified or may be gas, work must stop immediately. The service must be treated as live and must not be cut, altered or interfered with by anyone lacking the relevant competence. Gas-related work must be referred to an appropriately qualified Gas Safe registered engineer, with emergency procedures followed where necessary.”

He told the Committee that he was currently studying and training toward becoming appropriately qualified and Gas Safe registered. He acknowledged that this did not authorise him to undertake gas work at present and undertook to only carry out gas work in the future where he was “demonstrably competent and registered”. He said that in the meantime, he adopted “a stop-work rule”.
With regard to Particular 6, the Registered Person stated:

“I do not apologise for the communications because I maintain that I did not use abusive or threatening language. I do not accept the characterisation of my conduct as harassment, abuse or threats. I recognise that paragraphs 46 to 48 of the Committee’s decision formally record contrary findings. My position is stated to preserve my challenge; it is not represented as a finding already accepted by the Committee.”

The Registered Person focused his submissions entirely upon his communications in Catalan with Dr Escoda-Francoli Looking to the future, he concluded that:

“Without admission, I will use a solicitor, representative or other agreed professional channel for any legally necessary contact with the Referrers. I will also use a 24-hour review period and independent review for contentious correspondence. These are precautionary professional safeguards, not an acceptance of the disputed characterisation.”

Turning to Mitigating Factors and Proportionality, the Registered Person reminded the Committee that the findings in this case arise from one project and the communications with the referrers occurred within a defined period between April and August 2025. He acknowledged that the particular 4 involved a “dangerous situation”.
He offered to the Committee what he described as “core undertakings”, in the following terms:

“No gas work unless and until appropriately qualified and validly registered; no direct contact with the Referrers except through an appropriate formal channel; compliant written engagement before assuming professional responsibility; regulatory and heritage gateways; and a controlled communications protocol.”

He set out in tabular form the undertakings that he gave for the future:

Appendix A. Remedial Action Plan

The following controls are adopted as undertakings. Immediate controls take effect when these submissions are signed. Where implementation requires documents or training, the stated timescale applies.

Control	Undertaking / action	Timing	Evidence
Engagement	Before personally assuming responsibility for professional work, ensure a Standard 4.4-compliant appointment and responsibility matrix are in place.	Immediate	Signed appointment, role matrix and change log.
Building Control	Use an approvals tracker, written allocation of responsibility and formal handover on suspension or termination.	Immediate	Gateway checklist and handover record.
Heritage	Do not permit work affecting listed fabric until written confirmation and any required consent have been obtained.	Immediate	Consent register and written authority.
Services safety	Stop work where a service is unidentified or may be gas. Treat it as live and refer gas matters to a Gas Safe registered engineer. Do not undertake gas work unless and until appropriately qualified and validly registered, and then only within the registered categories.	Immediate	RAMS, permit, qualifications, registration check and specialist sign-off.
Communications	No direct contact with the Referrers except where legally required and then only through an agreed professional channel or representative. Apply a 24-hour cooling-off period to contentious communications.	Immediate	Communications protocol and correspondence log.
Training	Complete CPD on professional ethics, written appointments, conflict management and gas-safety awareness.	Within 90 days	Certificates and reflective learning notes.
Review	Review the controls and record lessons learned, with an independent professional where available.	At 6 and 12 months	Dated review note and updated procedures.

With regard to the appropriate sanction, he submitted that public protection and confidence could be secured without erasure. He submitted that the risks identified were capable of remediation through the “concrete controls and undertakings” he had given.
He invited the Committee to impose “no more than a proportionate penalty order” and submitted that “Such an order would mark the seriousness of the findings, uphold proper standards and maintain public confidence while recognising the available mitigation and the remedial plan.”
He submitted that if the Committee was not with him on that primary submission, it should impose the shortest period of suspension necessary and identify why a lesser sanction would be insufficient. He concluded with the submission that “erasure would be disproportionate to the findings, the mitigation, and the measures now adopted.”
The Committee heard the advice of the Chair in private and has followed it in its approach set out below.

The Committee’s approach

In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to all the evidence provided to it and took into account the submissions made by the Presenter and the written submissions of the Registered Person. The Committee had regard to and applied the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance (2022) (The SG), published by the ARB. It also had regard to the Committee’s decision on facts and its findings in relation to UPC.
The Committee reminded itself that the primary purpose of sanctions 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 a sanction may have a punitive eﬀect.
The Committee reminded itself that one result of that may be that matters of personal mitigation will be of less importance than they would be if the object were punishment. The Committee reminded itself of the principle laid down by the case of Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 ‘The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is part of the price.’
The Committee reminded itself that it must have regard to the principle of proportionality, that is to say that it must strike a proper balance between public protection and the rights of the Registered Person. Nevertheless, if a sanction is necessary for the protection of the public including in the wider public interest, it must be imposed. A sanction should be no more severe or restrictive than is necessary to achieve its aims.
The Committee reminded itself that it should identify any aggravating and mitigating factors and balance those factors to arrive at a view of the seriousness of the unacceptable professional conduct it had found.
The Committee acknowledged that it should consider each sanction in turn starting with the least restrictive and reminded itself that the sanctions available are as follows, (bearing in mind that a committee can, in appropriate circumstances, impose no sanction):
- Reprimand,
- Penalty order,
- Suspension,

The Committee’s decision

The Committee identified the following aggravating factors, by reference to paragraph 5.3.1 of the SG:
- The Committee found that each aspect of the Registered Person’s unacceptable professional conduct either caused or risked harm to clients and/or the wider public in that:
  - The matters proved under Particular 1, relating to the terms of engagement between the Registered Person and the referrers, led to significant difficulties regarding the Registered Person’s responsibilities and to the breakdown in trust between him and the referrers. This in turn led to significant delay and loss to the referrers.
  - The Committee has already found that the matters proved under particular 4 gave rise to a substantial risk of harm to the public;
  - The matters proved in respect of Particular 6 caused significant distress and fear to the referrers and risked undermining the regulation of the profession as a whole when the Registered Person threatened to make a video of one of the ARB employees.
- The Committee does not characterise the Registered Person’s UPC on site as a pattern of poor conduct but has already indicated that the matters proved in respect of Particular 6 alone amounted to a pattern of poor conduct over several months. The Committee observed that this conduct was repeated, directly affected four people and continued even after the ARB had written to the Registered Person warning him about his conduct.
- The Committee accepted that the Registered Person had acknowledged in part his failures to act as he should in respect of Particulars 1 and 4. However, in respect of the matters at Particular 6, the Registered Person maintained that he had done nothing wrong. He minimised some of his communications and behaviours and did not address at all his communications with the ARB.
- The Committee accepted that the Registered Person had shown some insight into what he had done wrong on the site but had demonstrated no understanding at all that his communications, both with the Referrers and the ARB, had been wrong or of the harm he had caused. The Committee observed that the Registered Person had not expressed any regret or remorse to any of the people involved in this case.
Turning to mitigating factors, the Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person had no previous adverse findings recorded against him.
[HEARD IN PRIVATE SESSION]
[HEARD IN PRIVATE SESSION]
Balancing all these factors, the Committee concluded that aggravating factors in this case greatly outweighed the mitigating factors and the Registered Person’s UPC fell towards the upper range of UPC, particularly with regard to the matters proved at Particular 6.
The Committee was satisfied that these matters caused direct harm and significant distress to clients and also risked undermining the regulation of the profession. For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the matters found proved are likely to have a significant impact upon public confidence in the profession.
In accordance with paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of the SG, the Committee had regard to the evidence of the Registered Person’s insight and remediation.
Turning to the matters proved at particulars 1 and 4, the Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person had shown in his written submissions, some insight into what he had done wrong and had reflected upon steps he might take to reduce the risk of repetition in the future. However, with regard to Particular 6 the Registered Person did not acknowledge that he had done wrong, much less the seriousness of what he had done.
The Committee also examined the contrast between the Registered Person’s written submissions, to which it has referred in some detail above, and his behaviour towards the Committee at the start of the hearing.
The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s insight was at best limited and fluctuating. The Committee reminded itself of the test set out in paragraph 5.7.:

“whether the architect has demonstrated an accurate and full understanding of their failings and whether they have taken steps to set things right” and the guidance given by Paragraph 5.8 that the Committee “should consider whether the architect has truly understood their failings, any underlying reasons for them, and the impact their actions had. In effect, they need to demonstrate to the PCC that there is a real reason to believe they have learned a lesson from the experience.”

Looking at the picture as a whole, the Committee was satisfied that what the Registered Person had done fell far short of that, in particular with regard to the matters proved at Particular 6 and could not be confident that the UPC would not be repeated.
Against this background, the Committee considered each of the sanctions in turn.
The Committee considered first whether it should impose no sanction. The Committee had regard to paragraph 6.1 of the Sanctions Guidance and concluded that this case was far too serious to impose no sanction and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify taking that course.
The Committee then considered imposing a reprimand. The Committee had regard to the matters set out in paragraph 6.2 of the Sanctions Guidance. The Committee concluded that this was not a matter that fell at the lower end of the scale of seriousness and reminded itself that the UPC found in this case was far from being an isolated incident, in particular with regard to Particular 6.
The Committee then considered a penalty order, that is to say a financial penalty of up to £2500. The Committee concluded that, while this sanction was open to the Committee, the UPC found in this case was too serious and would be insufficient to uphold public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
The Committee then considered whether to impose a suspension order. The Committee reminded itself of paragraph 6.4.1 of the Sanctions Guidance,

“A suspension order may be imposed by the PCC for serious offences, but where the circumstances are not so serious as to warrant erasure from the Register.”…” Any individual suspended from the Register cannot use the title ‘Architect’ in business or practice during that time (nor any reference to membership or fellowship of the Royal Institute of British Architects).”

The Committee had particular regard to the factors set out at 6.4.3 and concluded the following.
- The Committee was satisfied that the conduct is so serious that a reprimand or penalty order would be insufficient to protect the public or uphold public confidence in the profession for the reasons set out above.
- The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person is entitled to defend a case without it being held against him. Nevertheless, the practical effect in this case is that there is little evidence before it of insight or remorse for what he has done, in particular with regard to Particular 6.
- Similarly, there is insufficient material before it from which the Committee can be reassured that the behaviour is unlikely to be repeated.
- The Committee accepted that the UPC in this case is capable of being rectified, although the matters proved at Particular 6 would be difficult. However, the Committee was satisfied that there is no material before it which demonstrates that the Registered Person is himself capable of sustaining a commitment to address the issues. Indeed, the Committee was concerned that the Registered Person’s conduct on the day of this hearing demonstrated that he had not yet started to address the issues underlying Particular 6.
The Committee acknowledged that there is no evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since the Registered Person’s conduct came to light. However, there is no evidence before the Committee that the Registered Person has worked as an architect without difficulties since then.
The Committee then considered erasure and turned to paragraph 6.5 of the Sanctions Guidance which provides that:

6.5.1 An erasure order may be imposed by the PCC for those offences that are so serious that only removal from the Register will protect the public and/or uphold public confidence in the profession.

It also had regard to paragraph 6.5.2. Which provides that erasure may be considered appropriate where one or more of the following factors are present:
- There is a serious risk of harm to the public;
- The architect has committed a serious criminal offence;
- There is evidence of a deliberate or reckless disregard for public safety and/or the standards expected of an architect;
- The architect’s conduct or failing is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect;
- The PCC lacks confidence that a repeat offence will not occur;
- There is evidence of dishonesty or a serious lack of integrity;
- There is evidence the architect put their own interests before their client;
- The architect demonstrates a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of actions or consequences;
- Non-payment of a previously imposed penalty order.

The Committee was satisfied that its previous findings established that:
- The Registered Person had demonstrated a reckless disregard for the standards expected of an architect, in particular with regard to Particular 4 and his dealings with both the referrers and the ARB under Particular 6;
- The Registered Person’s conduct towards both the referrers and the employees of the ARB was likely to derail the investigation against him and undermine the proper regulation of architects. For those reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect;
- For the reasons set out above with regard to the Registered Person’s insight and conduct at the hearing, the Committee can have no confidence that the Registered Person’s conduct will not be repeated;
- Although the Registered Person has developed some insight or understanding into his conduct at particulars 1 and 4, he has persistently failed to show insight into the seriousness or consequences of his actions at Particular 6;
Taking all these matters together, the Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect and was too serious to be dealt with by any sanction other than erasure. The Committee concluded that no other sanction would be sufficient to protect clients in the future and uphold and maintain public confidence in the profession of architects.
In those circumstances, the Committee imposed an erasure order.
That order will remain in place permanently unless or until the Registered Person applies to re-join the register and is successful. The Committee recommends that any such application can only be made after a period of three years to reflect the gravity of his UPC and his multiple breaches of the Code.