Mr Marek Maciej Redo

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

MAREK MACIEJ REDO (091955A)

_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Chair)
Robert Dearman (Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (Lay Member)

_______________

Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Marek Maciej Redo

A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The order is a £2,000 penalty order.

In respect of the charges against Marek Maciej Redo (091955A) (“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;

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; and

c. 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:

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 did not advise the client on statutory obligations under the Party Wall Act;

2. The Registered Person did not act with due skill and care in that he did not ensure that the prestart planning conditions were discharged prior to work commencing on site;

3. The Registered Person did not adequately advise the client in relation to Building Regulations;

4. The Registered Person did not adequately communicate with their client and/or the project manager appointed by the client after a site meeting on 13 April 2023;

5. The Registered Person did not adequately and/or appropriately carry out his duties as contract administrator in that he:

(i) Did not carry out adequate inspections;
(ii) Did not appropriately certify the works

Statement of agreed facts:

1. The Registered Person is a registered architect, employed at Burston Architects Ltd.

2. The case follows a complaint to the ARB by Mr Charles Irvine (‘the Referrer’).

3. The Referrer began discussing the project with the Registered Person in April 2018. His project was to involve rebuilding the conservatory at the back of the house, and knocking down an existing gym at the Property and replacing it with two new buildings to provide a gym and workspace. He also sought to carry out some reconfiguration works to the outside space.

4. There was a delay in moving matters forward and the Registered Person was not formally appointed until January 2021.

5. The Registered Person prepared and submitted three planning applications to Haringey Council (“the Council”) between April 2021 and April 2022. Planning permission was granted on all three occasions.

6. When planning permission was granted for the rear storey extension (loft) and single storey rear outbuilding (extension) in June 2021, a number of conditions were attached to that planning permission. One of those conditions was that samples of materials to be used for the external surfaces were to be submitted to the Council for their approval.

7. The Referrer was initially advised by the Registered Person of the need for a separate Building Regulations application; however, following the receipt of incorrect advice from a Senior Building Control Surveyor, no Building Regulations application was ever submitted by the Registered Person.

8. A tender process was carried out in 2022 and DoBuild Ltd (“the Contractor”) were appointed as contractor in July 2022. Works commenced on site on 11 July 2022, with an anticipated duration of five months. The Works included work to the loft and also the addition of an extension. There are no complaints raised by the Referrer in respect of the work carried out by the Registered Person in respect of the loft.

9. Prior to work commencing, the Registered Person did not submit information to the Council to discharge the pre-start planning conditions. This included not supplying a schedule and sample of materials to be used, which included the Moroccan blue colour for the conservatory frame for the extension, and details of the proposed foundations.

10. During the course of the works, the Contractor provided several invoices. The Registered Person had certified variations totalling £47,170 plus VAT of a value of £78,000 of work by certificate 4.

11. The Registered Person did not routinely visit the Property and did not adequately inspect the works prior to certifying the variations albeit at all times there was some uncertainty as to the nature of the agreed services between the Referrer and the Registered Person due to the fact that the written contract for services to be provided by the Registered Person was not agreed or signed by the Referrer. Further, at one of the key stages in the build, the Registered Person was suffering from COVID.

12. The Referrer queried the variations with the Registered Person. The Registered Person agreed that almost all of the variations related to the works in the loft and are not the subject matter of this complaint.

13. There was a delay in installing Velux windows due to a longer lead in time for the delivery of those windows than expected although the order was issued by the Registered Person the same day that payment was received from the Referrer.

14. By early 2023, the building work had not completed and had come to a halt.

15. In March 2023 the Referrer asked Mr Simon Hollingworth (SH), a Chartered Surveyor, to assist with the project. SH visited the Property along with another individual, Anthony Thresh. A number of issues with the work were identified by them and following the meeting, SH emailed the Referrer his notes of his initial review of the project.

16. A meeting was arranged with the Contractor and the Registered Person to assess the project. That meeting took place on 13 April 2023. The Referrer was not present at the meeting. SH advises that the project manager from DoBuild Ltd became agitated and left the meeting shortly after it started. During the meeting the Registered Person explained that he thought the works did not need to comply with Building Regulations (based on views the Registered Person had obtained from a Senior Building Control Surveyor) as the works did not fall within the definition of an extension. SH did not agree with this. There was a walkaround the site following this meeting.

17. During this meeting, SH raised that there were no drawings for the foundations and queried what information and drawings the Contractor was using to construct the conservatory. No clear answer was provided at the meeting, nor was any detail provided as to whether anti-heave provisions were included in the foundation design, which was important due to building on London clay.

18. Following the meeting, the Registered Person ceased to have any further involvement with the build and relations between the Referrer and the Registered Person broke down.

19. At this point, the external structure for the conservatory was not in a position for the installation of the glass, building consent had not been obtained and planning requirements had not been met.

20. From this point onwards, much of the correspondence sent to the Registered Person was sent by SH. SH sought drawings but the Registered Person did not answer the phone or respond to messages. However, it was accepted that the Registered Person had provided all of the available drawings previously to the Referrer.

21. From April 2023 onwards, SH sought information from the Registered Person regarding the discharge of the planning conditions but the Registered Person did not confirm whether the conditions had been discharged.

22. As no application could be located on the Council website, SH then requested information required to submit a retrospective application on behalf of the Referrer. The Registered Person did not however provide the information requested.

23. On 15 June 2023, SH submitted a retrospective application to the Council for approval of the planning conditions in respect of the materials for the external finishes. SH provided further information to the Council in November 2023, January 2024 and February 2024. The application was subsequently refused. However, the Registered Person had already placed the order for the conservatory frame in a Moroccan blue powder coated colour, which cost over £100,000. The order was part-paid for in instalments by the Referrer between August 2022 and January 2023.

24. On 7 August 2023 the Referrer submitted a complaint to the ARB.

25. On 25 September 2023 SH submitted a retrospective application to the Council for approval of the planning conditions in respect of the foundations. On 14 March 2024, the Council approved the application.

26. The Referrer appointed an expert, Simon Levy, to report on the works completed. He was advised that the works ought to have been subject to the Party Wall Act 1996. However, there was no Party Wall Award in place. The Registered Person liaised extensively with the neighbours (and their building surveyor) prior to the Works about a range of issues to include the need for a Party Wall Award; however, at no time was a formal Party Wall Award put in place.

27. Following receipt of the expert report prepared by Simon Levy, a number of workmanship issues were identified with the work on site. As a result of this, a decision was made by the Referrer to demolish the structure that had been built due to stated concerns that the structure was unsafe. The Registered Person was invited to inspect the work before its demolition, which he did on 12 April 2024. The works were then demolished on 15 April 2024.

Admissions

28. The Registered Person accepts that he did not fully advise the client on statutory obligations under the Party Wall Act;

29. The Registered Person accepts that he did not act with due skill and care in that he did not ensure that the prestart planning conditions were discharged prior to work commencing on site;

30. The Registered Person accepts that he did not adequately advise the client in relation to Building Regulations;

31. The Registered Person accepts that he did not adequately communicate with their client and/or the project manager appointed by the client after a site meeting on 13 April 2023 in circumstances where the relationship between the Referrer and the Registered Person had become particularly difficult;

32. The Registered Person accepts that he did not adequately and/or appropriately carry out all of his duties as contract administrator in that he did not carry out adequate inspections at certain stages of the Works; and

33. The Registered Person accepts that he did not adequately and/or appropriately carry out all of his duties as contract administrator in that he did not appropriately certify the works at certain stages of the Works.

Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC)

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

35. Standard 2.1 of the 2017 Architect’s Code (“the Code”) states that an architect is expected to be competent to carry out the professional work they undertake to do and if they engage others to do that work they should be competent and adequately supervised. The Registered Person accepts that he did not competently carry out his work, in that he failed to advise the client on statutory obligations under the Party Wall Act; he failed to ensure that the prestart planning conditions were discharged prior to work commencing on site; he failed to adequately advise the client in relation to Building Regulations; and he failed to adequately and/or appropriately carry out all of his duties as contract administrator in respect of carrying out adequate inspections and appropriately certifying the works at certain stages of the Works.

36. Standard 6.1 of the Code states that an architect is expected to carry out their work with skill and care. The Registered Person accepts that he did not carry out his work with skill and care, in that he failed to advise the client on statutory obligations under the Party Wall Act; he failed to ensure that the prestart planning conditions were discharged prior to work commencing on site; he failed to adequately advise the client in relation to Building Regulations; and he failed to adequately and/or appropriately carry out all of his duties as contract administrator in respect of carrying out adequate inspections and appropriately certifying the works at certain stages of the Works.

37. Standard 6.2 of the Code states that an architect should carry out their professional work without undue delay and, so far is reasonably practicable, in accordance with any time-scale and cost limits agreed with their client. The Registered Person accepts that he did not adequately communicate with his client and/or the project manager appointed by the client in a timely manner after a site meeting on 13 April 2023.

38. Standard 6.3 of the Code states that an architect is expected to keep their client informed of the progress of work they undertake on their behalf and of any issue which may significantly affect its quality or cost. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to keep the Referrer informed of the progress of the work in respect of the statutory obligations under the Party Wall Act, the discharge of the prestart planning conditions prior to work commencing on site, and the status of the Building Regulations application. The Registered Person also accepts that he failed to keep the Referrer informed of all issues which might significantly affect its quality or cost, as he did not adequately inspect the works prior to certifying parts of the Works.

39. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of these Standards.

Disciplinary Order

40. 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 £2,000.

41. 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. The issues in this matter arose in the context of a challenging and complex build environment.

42. 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 £2,000 is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.

43. The penalty order of £2,000 is payable within 28 days (by 26 March 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.