Talk to us
Live Chat
Mr Lee Robert Adams
THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of
LEE ROBERT ADAMS (084612K)
_______________
Present:
Neil Dalton (Chair)
Stuart Carr (Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (Lay Member)
_______________
Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Lee Adams (“the Registered Person”)
A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The order is a £1,000 penalty order.
In respect of the charge against Lee Adams (084612K) (“the Registered Person”):
The Registered Person:
i. 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
ii. 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; and
iii. confirms that he waives the time requirement under Rule 38 of the Investigations and Professional Conduct Committee Rules 2022 for a Consent Order to be served not less than 42 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the Charge.
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:
1. An allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct has been brought by the ARB against the Registered Person. The particulars of the allegation that are agreed between the parties are as follows:
1. The Registered Person failed to carry out adequate inspections prior to the issuing of the Professional Consultants Certificate (“PCC”);
2. The Registered Person failed to provide the client with a copy of their written complaints procedure; and
3. The Registered Person failed to adequately communicate with the Referrer and or respond to a complaint, contrary to Standard 10.2 of the Architect’s Code (“the Code”).
Statement of agreed facts
1. The Registered Person is a registered architect at LARK Architects (“the firm”).
2. The allegation against the Registered Person arose following a complaint to the ARB by Katherine Subris (“the Referrer”) dated 21 June 2023
The Property
3. The Referrer purchased the property in Kildwick (“the property”) in early 2021. The property is one of five terraced houses, all of which are “new builds”.
4. The Referrer was provided with a copy of the Professional Consultant’s Certificate (“the PCC”) dated 10 February 2021 around the time she purchased the property. The PCC was completed by, and contained the details of, the Registered Person. It was signed by the Registered Person on 10 February 2021.
5. The PCC stated that:
i. the Registered Person visited the site at the appropriate periods from the commencement of construction to the current stage, being practical completion;
ii. during the site visits he had checked the progress, conformity with drawings approved under the building regulations and conformity with drawings/instructions properly issued under the building contract;
iii. the property had been generally constructed to a satisfactory standard and in general compliance with the drawings approved under the building regulations; and
iv. the Registered Person confirmed he had the appropriate experience in the design and/or monitoring of the construction or conversion of residential buildings.
6. On 1 March 2021, the Referrer moved into the property.
Issues with the Property
7. In Autumn or Winter of 2021, the Referrer became aware of a condensation issue in the loft space. The property developer attended the Referrer’s property, viewed the loft space and arranged for a tradesman to attend the property and remove the water in the loft area.
8. In January 2022, a roofer attended the Referrer’s address at her request to canvass the extent of the condensation issue. Following the roofer’s attendance, the Referrer requested a surveyor to attend the property to assess the issue. The surveyor attended the property on 7 February 2022 and produced a report on 14 February 2022, which identified condensation and mould, a lack of adequate ventilation and eaves, and a slashed membrane in the roof space.
9. Following a discussion between the Referrer and the property developer, a roofing company was asked to attend the Referrer’s property to carry out remedial works: they drilled holes where the ridge vents should have been installed; and inserted eaves vents into the roof.
10. Following the remedial works on the property, the Referrer arranged for a further report to be completed, which was provided to the Referrer on 21 July 2022.
11. On 17 December 2022, the Referrer sent a letter to LARK Architects outlining the issues with the property and requested a claim be made in accordance with the firm’s 6-year warranty. She provided the details of her complaint, being “condensation in the roof space caused by the lack of ventilation” which was caused by the lack of “ridges or eaves vents being installed”. The Referrer also made several requests of LARK Architects: an acknowledgement of the receipt of her letter, to be provided with the insurance claim number for her complaint, and to be provided with the proposed next steps to investigate and resolve the matter. The Referrer also referred to the need to be provided with a response within 21 days.
12. The Registered Person did not respond to the Referrer’s requests as contained in her correspondence; he did not provide his insurer’s claim number or outline the next steps in relation to the complaint.
13. After receiving no response from LARK Architects, the Referrer arranged for James Greenwood (JG), a solicitor and her godson, to contact the firm. On 6 February 2023, JG contacted LARK Architects and spoke to Robert Kaminski (RK), a Director. RK confirmed that he had received the Referrer’s letter and stated that LARK Architects was not willing to respond to the letter without the Referrer having first obtained legal representation.
14. On 13 February 2023, JG emailed LARK Architects outlining his and the Referrer’s expectations with respect to the letter: that they treat the letter as a formal complaint, they respond to the letter within 10 working days, and promptly provide a final response. A copy of LARK Architect’s complaints policy was also requested.
15. The Registered Person failed to respond to this correspondence or the requests contained therein. Instead, on 15 February 2023, RK responded by requesting arrangements are made for a site visit the following week and for the Referrer’s Representative to confirm whether remedial works were undertaken on the property.
16. On 7 March 2023, RK attended the property to conduct a site visit.
17. At this stage, the Referrer was dealing directly with RK. The Referrer’s first contact with the Registered Person occurred on 27 April 2023 when the Registered Person was copied into correspondence.
18. On 14 April 2023, the Referrer sent an email to RK and LARK Architects requesting confirmation of the outcome of the site visit. She also stated that no response to her complaint had been received.
19. On 27 April 2023, the Referrer again sent an email to RK and LARK Architects requesting confirmation of the outcome of the site visit. She also stated again that no response to her complaint had been received. The same day, RK responded to the Referrer, copying in the Registered Person. In his response, he stated that it was their understanding that the roof was installed correctly at the time the PCC was signed. The issue of ventilation was not addressed, nor was a complaints procedure provided.
20. On 4 May 2023, the Referrer sent an email to RK and LARK Architects again requesting confirmation of the outcome of the site visit. She also stated that no response to her complaint had been received. The same day, RK responded to the Referrer, copying in the Registered Person.
21. On 11 May 2023, JG sent email correspondence to RK. In his email, he requested, among other matters, confirmation as to whether a final response had been provided. On 15 May 2023, the Registered Person responded that numerous responses had been provided and reiterated that unauthorised remedial work had been conducted on the property. The issue of ventilation was not addressed, nor was a complaints procedure provided.
22. On 19 May 2023, JG sent email correspondence to the Registered Person and RK, who was copied into this correspondence. In his email, he requested, among other matters, confirmation as to whether a final response had been provided.
23. On 5 October 2023, the Referrer, JG, RK and the Registered Person had an in-person meeting. The result of this meeting was for the Referrer to obtain quotes from other builders to rectify the issues with the roof area, a task that the Referrer found difficult. It was further discussed that the Referrer was to pay for the cost of the remediation up front and then reclaim this money from LARK Architects.
24. On 14 December 2023, the Referrer sent the Registered Person an email in response to the proposed remedial work to her property. In this email, the Referrer requested LARK Architects’ position and proposals with regards to the issues with the roof. The issues identified by the referrer included:
i. Scaffolding and installation of ridge vents;
ii. Repair and/or replacement of the breather membrane;
iii. Viability of the eave vents; and
iv. Completion of the firewall in the loft space.
25. On 4 January 2024, the Referrer outlined in correspondence to the Registered Person Standard 10 of the ARB code of Conduct.
26. On 8 January 2024, the Referrer received email correspondence, including a letter dated 5 January 2024, from the Registered Person addressing some of the issues raised by the Referrer. However, the Registered Person failed to address the issue of the breather membrane, the viability of remedially fitted eaves vents and the completion of the firewall. The Registered Person also provided a quote from construction director, Nick Kaminski (NK), dated 5 January 2024. The Registered Person stated the Referrer would be responsible for paying 50% of the quote, something she had not agreed to. NK’s quote only addressed the work to be undertaken on the ridge vents.
27. On 18 January 2024, a surveyor, attended the property at the request of the Referrer. On 30 January 2024, he produced a report. In the report, the surveyor concluded that clear inadequacies had arisen due to the design and workmanship, and subsequent repair of the roof fabric. He also stated that further remedial work was required to ensure the site reflected the original building design proposal.
28. The Referrer corresponded further with the Registered Person on the following dates:
i. 15 January 2024;
ii. 17 January 2024;
iii. 22 January 2024;
iv. 23 January 2024;
v. 19 June 2024, 3 July 2024, 6 August 2024 and 20 August 2024;
vi. 30 September 2024;
vii. 12 October 2024, 28 October 2024, 14 November 2024, 21 November 2024, 27 November 2024 and 4 December 2024; and
viii. 10 December 2024.
29. The above correspondence included requests for the Registered Person to provide a final response and a complaints policy. The Registered Person failed to provide the Referrer or her representative with a final response or a complaints policy, did not engage with the Referrer in a constructive manner, and failed to adequately address queries raised by the Referrer and/or their Representative.
Admissions
30. The Registered Person admits that he is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
31. The Registered Person admits that he failed to exercise his usual high standards in relation to relevant inspections, and then during a period of personal difficulties, he did not exercise the appropriate care and diligence required in dealing with the complaints process and resolution in relation to the Referrer.
Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct
32. In light of the admissions above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
33. Standard 6 of the Architects Code (2017) requires an architect to carry out their professional work conscientiously and with due regard to relevant technical and professional standards. Specifically, Standard 6.1 states that an architect is expected to carry out their work with skill and care and in accordance with the terms their engagement. The Registered Person admits that he failed to carry out his work with skill and care in accordance with the terms of engagement.
34. Standard 10 of the Architects Code (2017) requires an architect to have deal with disputes or complaints appropriately. Specifically, Standard 10.1 states an architect is expected to have a written procedure for the handling of complaints which will be in accordance with the Code and published guidance. Further, Standard 10.2 states that complaints should be handled courteously and promptly at every stage, and as far as practicable in accordance with the following time scales: a) an acknowledgement within 10 working days from the receipt of a complaint; and b) a response addressing the issues raised in the initial letter of complaint within 30 days from its receipt. The Registered Person admits that he failed to produce a written procedure for the handling of complaint, handle the complaint courteously and promptly, and in accordance with the relevant time scales.
35. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of Standards 6.1 and 10 of the Code.
Disciplinary Order:
36. 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. a penalty order of £1,000.
37. The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions. He has also admitted that these amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
38. 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 penalty order of £1,000 is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.
39. The penalty order of £1,000 is payable within 28 days (by 5 May 2025). Should the Registered Person wish to make an application to vary the payment terms then an application must be submitted to ARB for consideration by the Consent Order Panel Chair.