Live Chat
Mr Joseph Emeka Obidire Aniedu
THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of
JOSEPH EMEKA OBIDIRE ANIEDU (085213I)
_______________
Present:
Sean Hammond (Chair)
Janice Tam (Architect Member)
Alastair Cannon (Lay Member)
_______________
Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Joseph Emeka Obidire Aniedu (“the Registered Person”)
A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The disciplinary order is a Reprimand.
In respect of the charges against the Registered Person:
The Registered Person:
a. accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against him in the terms set out below; and
b. confirms that he has been offered the opportunity to appear before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee to present his case, but has foregone his right to do so.
The Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against the Registered Person in the terms set out below.
The Allegation:
An allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct has been brought by the ARB against the Registered Person. In support of the allegation, the ARB relies upon the following particular:
1. The Registered Person did not provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code.
Statement of Agreed Facts
1. The Registered Person is a registered architect and Director of AGA Associates.
2. On 16 August 2022, the ARB received a complaint in respect of the Registered Person from former clients of the Registered Person (“the Referrers”).
3. The Referrers own a coffee shop in London. They wanted to refurbish the premises and proposed works included an internal refurbishment, external façade treatment, and the erection of a pergola to the rear of the premises.
4. The Referrers approached the Registered Person to undertake architectural services for the project and the Registered Person first visited the premises in March 2021.
5. The Registered Person sent the Referrers a Proposal for Architectural Services on 3 March 2021 and a second Proposal for Architectural Services on 9 March 2021. The Referrers say that two proposals were sent because the first proposal was above budget and so the second Proposal offered a lower price for the works.
6. The Referrers say that payment was discussed prior to formal instruction and during the initial meeting in March 2021. They say that at that meeting it was agreed that the Registered Person would be paid in 5 instalments following each of the RIBA stages, with the final payment being made once the project was complete. This was set out in the second Proposal of 9 March 2021.
7. The second Proposal for Architectural Services was accepted by the Referrers and, as such, the Registered Person was appointed in respect of a five stage RIBA process, namely:
a) Stage 1 – Preparation & Brief;
b) Stage 2 – Concept Design;
c) Stage 3 – Spatial Coordination;
d) Stage 4 – Technical Design;
e) Stage 5 – Manufacturing / Construction.
8. The Registered Person was formally instructed on 3 April 2021. He prepared drawings and then submitted a planning application to the Local Planning Authority on 9 June 2021. Planning permission was granted on 20 September 2021.
9. A formal tender process was then undertaken. On 14 March 2022, the Referrers entered into a JCT Design and Build contract with a Contractor. The Registered Person was appointed as Employer’s Agent under the contract. A contract sum of £60,445.25 was agreed, payable in six monthly payments. Work began on site thereafter.
10. Initially works progressed well on site. However, they then became delayed. The Referrers say issues also arose around the drawings being used on site. A dispute then arose between the Registered Person and the Contractor around the issue of a Pay Less Notice; the Referrer says that at this point, in April 2022, he did not know what stage the works were at in line with the RIBA stages.
11. A site meeting was arranged for 25 May 2022. The Referrers say that during the meeting the Contractor raised issues regarding the drawings. They say that the Registered Person responded saying that he would not produce any further drawings or amend the current ones. The Referrers say that during the meeting the Registered Person requested payment of the £510 due for Stage 5 of the process. The Referrers say they told the Registered Person that new plans were needed to allow the Contractor to continue the works. They say that the Registered Person reiterated these were not needed.
12. The Referrers say that they were taken aback that they had been asked by the Registered Person to pay him in full as the agreement had been that the Stage 5 payment would be made once the project was complete.
13. On 30 May 2022, the Referrers emailed the Registered Person to express disappointment that they were being pressured to pay the final payment, which was not due until the project was complete.
14. On 31 May 2022, the Registered Person contacted the Referrers to advise that he was suspending his work on the project as his invoice for Stage 5 had been due on 25 May 2022. The Referrers responded on 1 June 2022, expressing frustration and disappointment.
15. On 2 June 2022, the Registered Person responded confirming he would not have any further involvement in the project unless his invoice was paid for Stage 5. No further correspondence passed between the parties.
Admissions
16. The Registered Person admits that he did not provide any and/or adequate terms of engagement and that this was contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code.
Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct
17. In light of the admissions above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
18. Standard 4 of the Architects Code (2017) (“the Code”) requires an architect to competently manage their business. Standard 4.4 requires architects to enter into a written agreement with the client before any professional work is undertaken. The written agreement must adequately cover:
a. the contracting parties;
b. the scope of the work:
c. the fee or method of calculating it;
d. who will be responsible for what;
e. any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;
f. the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;
g. a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by ARB;
h. the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed;
i. that you have a complaints-handling procedure available on request;
j. that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to this Code.
19. The Registered Person admits that he did not provide adequate terms of engagement to the Referrers. The Registered Person admits that the terms of engagement provided did not fully set out provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement. Further, no information was provided on insurance cover or details, confirmation that a complaints handling process was available or confirmation that the Registered Person is registered with ARB and subject to the requirements of the Code.
20. The Registered Person accepts that he had a professional obligation to provide his client with full and adequate terms of engagement that complied with the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code. The Registered Persona accepts that the provision of clear, understandable written terms of engagement to their client before commencing work is essential to maintain transparency, build trust, and uphold professional standards.
21. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of Standard 4.4 of the Code.
22. The Registered Person wishes to state the following:
a. AGA Associates strives to conduct its professional practice with the utmost integrity, transparency, and respect for both clients and industry standards. They take their responsibilities very seriously under the Architects Registration Board (ARB) Code of Conduct and the trust placed in them by their clients, team, and the wider public.
b. The matter referenced in the Consent Order relates to the terms of engagement provided to one client and does not reflect their architectural design competence.
c. AGA Associates will ensure that their Terms and Conditions moving forward are consistent with common architectural practice and aligned with the standards required under the ARB Code of Conduct. AGA Associates have already taken steps to ensure their engagement terms meet the standards required.
d. AGA Associates value their professional reputation and the trust of their clients. AGA Associates has delivered numerous successful projects across London and the UK, and has been consistently praised for their design quality, collaborative approach, and client care. They state that this matter in no way reflects on the quality of their work, their dedication to clients, or their professional standing.
e. They will continue to serve their clients with transparency, honesty, and excellence in architectural design.
Disciplinary Order:
23. The Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee, with the consent of the parties and having taken account of its responsibilities to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession, makes the following disciplinary order:
a. Reprimand.
24. The Registered Person has engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions. He has also admitted that these amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
25. The admitted allegation has the potential to diminish both the Registered Person’s reputation and that of the profession generally and therefore the parties agree that the Registered Person’s conduct is sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order. In light of the admissions, the parties agree that a reprimand is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.