Select Page


Download this page as a PDF

Mr Matthew Beasley

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

 

In the matter of

Matthew Beasley

Registration No. 085656H

Held as a video conference

On

17-21 April 2023

———-

Present

Sean Hammond (Chair)

 Deborah Kirk (PCC Architect Member)

  Rachel Childs (PCC Lay Member)

———–

In this case, the ARB is represented by Mr Jean-Jack Chalmers of Kingsley Napley LLP (“the Presenter”)

Mr Matthew Beasley (“the Registered Person”) has attended this hearing and is legally represented by Mr Jonathan Goodwin.

 

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

(1) In or around January 2020 the Registered Person advised the client to enter into a contract with Company A without providing any and/or any adequate information and advice on the following:

a) Accurate details regarding the company name;

b) That Company A was a lettings business as opposed to an architectural practice;

c) That the Registered Person was neither a Director or employed by Company A;

(2) That architectural services on the client’s project would be undertaken, in whole or in part, by those employed by Company B;

(3) Any implications 1(d) might pose to the client’s ability to pursue a claim against Company A.

(4) The Registered Person’s actions at particulars 1(a) and/or 1(b) and/or 1(c) and/or 2 and/or 3:

a) were misleading; and

b) actions at particulars 1(c) and 3 lacked integrity.

and that by doing so, he acted in breach of Standards 1 and 3 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”).

 

Preliminary Legal Arguments

Application to admit disputed hearsay evidence

  1. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Goodwin made an application to admit hearsay evidence from Person A, the Managing Director of Urban Surveying and Design Ltd, namely:

i) An email from Person A to the Registered Person dated 4 April 2023 together with a quote addressed to the Referrer from Urban Surveying and Design Ltd dated 16 January 2020; and

ii) A witness statement from Person A dated 11 April 2023.

 

  1. Mr Goodwin submitted that the email dated 4 April 2023 and the quote dated 16 January 2020 had been served on the ARB by the agreed date for service of the Registered Person’s defence documents. Mr Goodwin submitted that the ARB had previously not raised any objection to the admissibility of this evidence.

 

  1. In relation to the witness statement of Person A dated 11 April 2023, Mr Goodwin acknowledged that this was served on the ARB after the agreed date for service of the Registered Person’s defence documents, but he submitted that this was as a result of Person A not providing a witness statement sooner.

 

  1. Mr Goodwin submitted that the Registered Person had left Urban Surveying and Design Ltd in August 2020 and he no longer had access to the emails and files relating to his involvement with the Referrer. Mr Goodwin submitted that the Registered Person was therefore having to rely on Person A to provide him with relevant evidence.

 

  1. Mr Goodwin submitted that it had been the intention of the Registered Person to call Person A to give oral evidence at the hearing, however, in an email dated 14 April 2023, Person A had informed the Registered Person that he would not be attending the hearing.

 

  1. Mr Goodwin submitted that Person A provided important, relevant evidence that supported the Registered Person’s defence. Mr Goodwin further submitted that as there was no power to compel Person A’s attendance at the hearing, it would be fair to admit his evidence as hearsay evidence. Mr Goodwin acknowledged that if the Committee acceded to his application, then it would be for the Committee to determine what weight to attach to Person A’s evidence.

 

  1. The Presenter submitted that the ARB did not agree with the evidence provided by Person A and therefore required his attendance at the hearing so that his evidence may be explored and tested by cross-examination. He submitted that it would therefore be unfair to the ARB if the Committee decided to admit his evidence as hearsay.

 

  1. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair who referred it to Rule 19 of the Professional Conduct Committee Rules 2022 (“the Rules”), and to the guidance provided in relation to the admissibility of disputed hearsay in the following cases: NMC v Ogbonna [2010] EWCA Civ 1216, Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin) and El Karout v NMC [2019] EWHC 28 (Admin).

 

  1. The Committee noted that Rule 19 of the Rules provides:

 

       “The Hearing Panel may admit any evidence it considers fair and relevant to the case    before it, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a court of law.”

 

  1. The Committee noted that Mr Goodwin’s application related to an email from Person A dated 4 April 2023 together with a fee quote addressed to the Referrer from Urban Surveying and Design Ltd dated 16 January 2020, and a witness statement from Person A dated 11 April 2023.

 

  1. The Committee further noted that the witness statement of Person A dated 11 April 2023 was prepared in respect of these proceedings. It was signed and dated by Person A but it did not contain a declaration of truth. The Committee took into account that within the witness statement, Person A referred to both his email dated 4 April 2023 and to the fee quote dated 16 January 2020. In the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that it would be appropriate to consider the admissibility of all the evidence provided by Person A together, rather than making separate decisions.

 

  1. The Committee first considered whether the disputed hearsay evidence of Person A was relevant to the case before it. In the Committee’s view, the evidence of Person A was clearly relevant to the background to the factual particulars alleged by the ARB in support of the charge against the Registered Person.

 

  1. The Committee next considered whether it would be fair to admit the disputed hearsay evidence. The Committee carefully considered the judgments in the cases of Ogbonna, Thorneycroft and El Karout. The Committee noted that in those cases, it was the regulator who had sought to rely on hearsay evidence, whereas the application before the Committee today was made on behalf of the Registered Person. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair that the principles identified in those judgments were applicable to its determination of the application to admit the disputed hearsay evidence of Person A. The Committee therefore applied the following principles when reaching its decision:

i) The admission of the statement of an absent witness should not be regarded as a routine matter. The Rules require the Committee to consider the issue of fairness before admitting the evidence.

ii) The fact that the absence of the witness can be reflected in the weight to be attached to their evidence is a factor to weigh in the balance, but it will not always be a sufficient answer to the objection to admissibility.

iii) The existence or otherwise of a good and cogent reason for the non-attendance of the witness is an important factor. However, the absence of a good reason does not automatically result in the exclusion of the evidence.

iv) Where such evidence is the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the charges, the decision whether or not to admit it requires the Committee to make a careful assessment, weighing up the competing factors. To do so, the Committee must consider the issues in the case, the other evidence which is to be called and the potential consequences of admitting the evidence. The Committee must be satisfied either that the evidence is demonstrably reliable, or alternatively that there will be some means of testing its reliability.

 

  1. The Committee therefore acknowledged that it should not admit the proposed hearsay evidence as a matter of routine and that it must carefully consider whether it would be fair for it to be admitted under Rule 19 of the Rules.

 

  1. The Committee considered whether there was a good and cogent reason for the non-attendance of Person A. The Committee noted that Person A had simply stated in his email dated 14 April 2023, that he would not be attending the hearing. In the Committee’s view, no good or cogent reason was put forward for Person A’s non-attendance. However, the Committee also had regard to the fact that there was no power to compel Person A’s attendance at the hearing.

 

  1. The Committee noted that it was the Registered Person who was seeking to rely on the evidence of Person A as important background evidence relevant to his defence to the factual particulars of the charge. The Committee further noted that if it refused the application, then the Registered Person would not be able to adduce the disputed evidence from any other source. The Committee also noted that if it were to accede to the application, then the ARB would be disadvantaged to the extent that the Presenter would be deprived of the opportunity of testing Person A’s evidence by cross-examination.

 

  1. Having regard to the above matters, the Committee decided that on balance, it would be fair to admit the evidence of Person A as disputed hearsay evidence. It will then be for the Committee to determine what, if any, weight should be placed upon it.

 

Allegation

  1. The charge against the Registered Person is that he is guilty of UPC.

 

  1. The particulars alleged in support of the charge are as follows:

(1) In or around January 2020 the Registered Person advised the client to enter into a           contract with Company A without providing any and/or any adequate information and/or advice on the following:

a) Accurate details regarding the company name;

b) That Company A was a lettings business as opposed to an architectural practice;

c) That the Registered Person was neither a Director or employed by Company A;

d) That architectural services on the client’s project would be undertaken, in whole or in part, by those employed by Company B;

e) Any implications 1(d) might pose to the client’s ability to pursue a claim against Company A.

 

              (2) Between 17 January 2020 and 1 April 2020, the Registered Person sent the client correspondence and/or invoices which referred to both Companies A and B which caused confusion as to who the client was in contract with;

 

              (3) Between 17 January 2020 and 20 January 2020, the Registered Person indicated to the client that Company A employed and/or was managed by those registered with the ARB when this was not the case.

 

              (4) The Registered Person’s actions at particulars 1(a) and/or 1(b) and/or 1(c) and/or 2 and/or 3:

a) Were misleading; and/or

b) Lacked integrity.

 

              Schedule A

              Company A – Urban Development UK Ltd (also referred to as “Urban Developments

              Ltd”)

              Company B – Urban Surveying & Design Ltd

 

Admissions

  1. In accordance with Rule 25(c) of the Rules, the Registered Person was asked whether he admitted any of the factual particulars alleged in support of the charge. He declined to do so.

 

Background

  1. The Registered Person is a registered architect.

 

  1. At the time of the matters giving rise to the charge, the Registered Person was a non-shareholding Director of Urban Surveying and Design Ltd (“Company B”). Person A was the Managing Director of Company B.

 

  1. In January 2020, Mr Stockley (“the Referrer”), who lives at a property in Broadstairs in Kent, decided to engage with architectural services in order to build a single storey side extension to his property.

 

  1. The Referrer was aware of Company B as it was a local company and he passed by its premises on a regular basis.

 

  1. The Referrer telephoned Company B and spoke to the Registered Person. After the initial telephone contact, the Registered Person attended at the Referrer’s property on 16 January 2020. He met with the Referrer and his wife and they discussed the scope of the works. During the meeting, the Registered Person provided the Referrer with a business card that described the Registered Person as an Architect and Director of Company B.

 

  1. On 17 January 2020, the Registered Person sent an email to the Referrer attaching a quote for the works. In the email, the Registered Person stated:

 

“…I have put the quotation through our sister company, Urban Developments Ltd, as         this is non VAT registered and appropriate given the scale of the works. Urban Developments Ltd has the same insurances and accreditations as Urban Surveying   and Design Ltd but with the benefit that you won’t have to pay the VAT on top…”

 

  1. The quote attached to the email sent by the Registered Person to the Referrer was from Urban Developments Ltd and was dated 17 January 2020. Following some negotiation on the scope and price, the Referrer received a revised fee quote from Urban Developments Ltd described as “Fee Quote A”. Fee Quote A was also dated 17 January 2020 but was received by the Referrer on 21 January 2020, having been sent by post.

 

  1. The Referrer stated that these were the only two quotes that he received from the Registered Person. However, this is disputed by the Registered Person. It is the Registered Person’s case that the first quote he prepared was from Company B and was dated 16 January 2020. It is the Registered Person’s case that this first quote from Company B was sent to the Referrer by email on 16 January 2020. It is the Registered Person’s case that having received the quote from Company B, the Referrer attended the business premises of Company B during the afternoon of 16 January 2020 and had a meeting with Person A. It is the Registered Person’s case that on the morning of 17 January 2020, Person A informed him of the meeting with the Referrer and that Person A instructed the Registered Person to prepare and a quote from Company A. It is the Registered Person’s case that Person A assured him that Company A had the same insurance and accreditation as Company B and that it would be to the benefit of the Referrer as Company A was not VAT registered and therefore it would offer the Referrer cost savings.

 

  1. On 22 January 2020, the Referrer entered contract with the company he understood to be called Urban Developments Ltd. In fact, the correct name of the company, as registered at Companies House, was Urban Developments UK Ltd (“Company A”).

 

  1. There then followed discussions between the Registered Person and the Referrer about the architectural design. On the 12 February 2020, the Referrer telephoned the Registered Person to make a complaint about issues that had arisen, in particular in relation to the repositioning of a chimney that was supposed to be a main feature of the extension to the Referrer’s property. During the call, the Registered Person informed the Referrer that he was terminating the contract as a result of his abusive and threatening behaviour.

 

  1. A meeting took place on 17 February 2020 between the Referrer, his son-in-law (acting as a witness) and Person A. The dispute was resolved, and the project continued.

 

  1. The extension to the Referrer’s property was built but a number of issues arose with the building works, first in relation to the foundations and later in respect of water ingress. There were continued negotiations between the Referrer and Person A to rectify those issues and the funding of remedial works.

 

  1. The issues that arose gave rise to the need for the Referrer to complain and seek redress. In the course of taking such action, the Referrer made enquiries about Company A. He discovered that the correct name of Company A was Urban Developments UK Ltd and not Urban Developments Ltd, that Company A was in fact a lettings business as opposed to an architectural practice, that the Registered Person was neither a Director nor an employee of Company A, that the architectural services under the contract with Company A would be carried out by Company B and that as result of that it had the potential to frustrate the Referrer’s ability to pursue redress.

 

  1. The Referrer made a complaint to the ARB on 19 May 2021.

 

Decision on the Facts

  1. In reaching its decisions, the Committee read and considered the content of:

i) The ARB Hearing Bundle (exhibit 1);

ii) The Registered Person’s Defence Document (exhibit 2);

iii) The Bundle of documents attached to the Registered Person’s Defence Document (exhibit 3);

iv) The witness statement of Mr B, dated 11 March 2023, relating to the health of the Registered Person (exhibit 4);

v) The witness statement of the Registered Person, dated 5 April 2023 (exhibit 5);

vi) The witness statement of Person A, dated 11 April 2023 (exhibit 6);

vii) Copies of emails exchanged between the Registered Person and Person A in relation to Person A’s attendance at the hearing (exhibit 7); and

viii) A copy of the email dated 17 January 2020 from the Referrer to the Registered Person confirming receipt of the email of the same date from the Registered Person attaching the quote from Company A (exhibit 8).

  1. The Committee heard oral evidence from the Referrer and from the Registered Person.

 

  1. During the Registered Person’s oral evidence, he informed the Committee that he wished to give evidence about his health. The Committee determined that in accordance with Rule 34 of the Rules, it would hear that part of his oral evidence in private. In reaching this decision, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s right to privacy outweighed the public interest in holding that part of the hearing in public.

 

  1. At the close of the evidence, the Committee heard submissions from the Presenter and from Mr Goodwin.

 

  1. The Committee accepted the legal advice given by the Legally Qualified Chair which is a matter of record.

 

  1. The Committee noted that there was a direct conflict between the evidence of the Referrer and the evidence of the Registered Person in relation to whether or not the Registered Person had provided the Referrer with an initial quote from Company B on 16 January 2020, or whether the first quote provided by the Registered Person was the quote from Company A dated 17 January 2020. The Committee was of the view that although this matter did not form part of the factual particulars alleged in support of the charge, it was a matter that provided important context to the issues in the case.

 

  1. The Committee therefore considered the available evidence in relation to this matter.

 

  1. The Committee first considered the evidence of the Referrer. The Committee noted that during his oral evidence, he adopted the content of his witness statement dated 23 January 2023. The Committee was of the view that the Referrer’s account as provided in his witness statement was very detailed and inherently consistent. The Committee was also of the view, that the contemporaneous exhibits he produced in his witness statement, for example, emails, copies of WhatsApp messages, and correspondence were consistent with and supported his evidence. In addition, the Committee considered that the Referrer’s oral evidence to be consistent with his witness statement.

 

  1. The panel noted that Mr Goodwin cross-examined the Referrer at some length, and at times quite robustly when it was suggested that he was not being truthful. He was shown a copy of the quote from Company B dated 16 January 2020 provided by Person A. It was put to him by Mr Goodwin that he had been provided with a copy on either 16 or 17 January 2020, however, the Referrer denied that this was the case. He stated that the first time he had seen the Company B fee quote dated 16 January 2020 was when a copy of it had been provided to him by Person A’s solicitors in January 2023 in connection with his on-going civil litigation against Person A.

 

  1. Mr Goodwin also put to the Referrer that having received the quote from Company B dated 16 January 2020, the Referrer had attended Company B’s business premises where he had a discussion with Person A. It was suggested to the Referrer that during this discussion, the Referrer had asked if he could pay in cash and not pay VAT and that as a result of this, Person A had informed him that the work could be put through Company A, which was not VAT registered. The Committee noted that the Referrer appeared to be surprised by the suggestion that he had attended Company B’s premises on either 16 or 17 January 2020. He was adamant that he did not do so and that no such conversation took place between him and Person A.

 

  1. The Referrer was asked by Mr Goodwin why, if the quote from Company A dated 17 January 2020 was the only quote he had received from the Registered Person, did he state in his email dated 19 January 2020, “I’ve had the opportunity to study your quotes over the weekend…”. The Referrer stated that the quote from Company A dated 17 January 2020 contained proposed fees for three parts of the scope of works; preliminary services; lawful development certificate; and building regulations application. He stated that this is what he meant by his use of the word “quotes” and that he was not referring to the quote from Company B dated 16 January 2020.

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, the Referrer’s evidence in relation to the matters set out above was credible and appeared to be reliable.

 

  1. The Committee next considered the evidence of the Registered Person in relation to these matters. The Committee noted that in his response to the ARB dated 6 September 2020, he stated:

 

“…Urban Surveying and Design Ltd and Urban Development UK Ltd are both owned             and managed by [Person A]. The first quotation issued to [the Referrer] was through Urban Surveying and Design Ltd, however, [the Referrer] came back to us to say that            he felt the costs were too high. [Person A] made the decision to offer [the Referrer] the option of putting the work through Urban Development UK Ltd as this was a non VAT              registered company and therefore [the Referrer] would save the VAT. While outwardly this is not the most ethical of practices the sole reason was to provide savings to the client. [The Referrer] agreed to putting the work through Urban    Development UK Ltd and signed off the quotation…”

 

  1. In his response to the ARB dated 17 February 2022, the Registered Person stated:

 

“…Prior to appointment [the Referrer] was presented with a quotation from Urban               Surveying and Design Ltd and a quotation from Urban Developments Ltd. The             variations in these quotations was completely explained to [the Referrer] and he was       given full autonomy to chose which route to follow. [the Referrer] chose to sign off       the Urban Developments Ltd quotation and we proceeded with the works…”

 

  1. The Committee noted that following the Referrer’s complaint to the ARB the Registered Person has therefore consistently stated that the first quote he prepared and provided to the Referrer was from Company B. The Committee further noted that during his oral evidence, the Registered Person maintained that this was the case. He told the Committee that he attended the Referrer’s property in the morning and met with the Referrer and his wife. He stated that he no longer had access to his records, having left Company B in August 2020. He stated that he would usually schedule his site visits at 10am and that he believed this is what he did on 16 January 2020. The Registered Person told the Committee that he was at the Referrer’s property for approximately one hour. He then travelled back to Company B’s premises which would have taken him about 15-20 minutes. He stated that it would have taken him 30-40 minutes to prepare the quote and that he would have used a template. He stated that he would have then printed off a copy of the quote for Person A to approve. He told the Committee that Person A insisted on approving all quotes before they were sent out. He stated that Person A approved the quote and that he emailed a copy to the Referrer during the afternoon of 16 January 2020. He stated that he was no longer able to obtain a copy of that email. He stated that he did not receive a response to his email from the Referrer.

 

  1. The Registered Person told the Committee that he arrived at Company B’s offices at approximately 7.30am on 17 January 2020. He stated that when he arrived, he was told by Person A that the Referrer had attended the premises of Company B during the afternoon of 16 January 2020 when the Registered Person wasn’t present. Person A reported that the Referrer had asked if he could pay cash and not pay VAT. The Registered Person told the Committee that Person A informed him that he had agreed with the Referrer that the work would be put through Company A as it was not VAT registered. The Registered Person told the Committee that he felt uncomfortable about this as it was the first time any client’s work had been put through Company A. He stated that previously, he was only aware of it being used in relation to one of Person A’s own projects. He told the Committee that he had been assured by Person A that Company A had all of the same insurances and accreditation as Company B, and that Person A instructed him to prepare a quote from Company A. The Registered Person told the Committee that he was provided with a template which he used to prepare the quote from Company A dated 17 January 2020. He stated that he then sent the email to the Referrer at 8.32am on 17 January 2020 attaching the quote from Company A.

 

  1. The Committee noted that during cross-examination, the Registered Person agreed that the Referrer had contacted him by WhatsApp on 23 April 2021, and that after exchanging messages, they then spoke on the telephone. During the telephone conversation the Registered Person agreed to provide the Referrer with a witness statement in relation to the Referrer’s on-going dispute with Company B. During his evidence, the Registered Person confirmed that he subsequently provided a witness statement to the Referrer on 1 May 2021, although it was incorrectly dated 1 April 2021. The Presenter referred the Registered Person to a copy of the witness statement contained in the ARB hearing bundle. The Registered Person confirmed that it was the document he had drafted and sent to the Referrer. The Committee noted that the witness statement stated that that the Referrer had entered into a contract with Company B and made no reference to the Referrer wanting to pay in cash and not pay VAT, to attending Company B’s premises on 16 January 2020, or to the quote he sent to the Referrer from Company A dated 17 January 2020. The Committee further noted that when the Registered Person was asked by the Presenter why none of these matters appeared in his witness statement, he said that at the time he wrote the statement on 1 May 2021, he did not recollect those matters and that he did not have access to any of his emails or documents relating to the Referrer’s project.

 

  1. The Committee also considered the disputed hearsay evidence in relation to these matters provided by Person A. The Committee noted that the content of Person A’s email to the Registered Person dated 4 April 2023, in which he stated:

 

“Hi Matt,

       As I recall [the Referrer] was issued with the fee quote from Urban Surveying &              Design Ltd,

       He came into the office asking to pay cash to avoid paying VAT – you asked me if he   could pay cash I said no, but we could undertake works via Urban Developments Ltd –   another insured company.

       A revised quote was issued to [the Referrer] – he requested changes (only one option)               the quote was revised again and issued. [The Referrer] signed off the quote.”

 

  1. In his witness statement dated 11 April 2023, Person A confirmed that the contents of his email dated 4 April 2023 were true. He further stated that:

 

“… 3. By way of further clarification, I recall that [the Referrer] was issued with a fee quote from Urban Surveying and Design Ltd dated 16 January 2020, quoting amongst       other things, fees plus VAT.

 

  1. I recall that [the Referrer] came into the office asking to pay cash to avoid paying the VAT. Mr Beasley asked if [the Referrer] could pay cash, to which I said no, but         that we could undertake the works via Urban Developments Ltd, being another               insured company of mine.

 

  1. A revised quote dated 17 January 2020 was issued to [the Referrer] from Urban Developments Ltd quoting, amongst other things, fees without VAT…”

 

  1. The Committee was of the view that in general terms, the evidence provided by Person A supported the Registered Person’s account. However, the Committee noted that in both his email and his witness statement, Person A made a reference to the Registered Person asking Person A if the Referrer could pay in cash. This aspect of Person A’s evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of the Registered Person who denied making such a request.

 

  1. The Committee carefully considered the copy of the quote from Company A dated 16 January 2020 provided by Person A. The Committee noted that it appeared to be a photocopy or scan of a paper copy of the quote. The Committee further noted that Person A had not produced a copy of an email sent to the Referrer on 16 January 2020 attaching the quote.

 

  1. The Committee was mindful that the evidence of Person A was not agreed by the ARB and had been admitted by the Committee as disputed hearsay evidence. As such, the Committee must determine what weight to attach to Person A’s evidence. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account the fact that Person A’s witness statement dated 11 April 2023 had clearly been prepared in relation to these proceedings, that it was signed and dated by Person A, and that within the body of the witness statement Person A also confirmed that the contents of his email dated 4 April 2023 were true. However, the Committee also took into account that the witness statement did not contain a declaration of truth, and that as a result of his non-attendance at the hearing, Person A had not given evidence on oath or affirmation and had not had his evidence tested by cross-examination. In the Committee’s view, it was also noteworthy that Person A had not produced a copy of an email dated 16 January 2020 or any other contemporaneous evidence showing that the quote from Company A dated 16 January 2020 was sent to the Referrer on 16 January 2020. In the circumstances, the Committee determined that it could attach little weight to the evidence of Person A.

 

  1. Turning back to the evidence of the Registered Person, the Committee was of the view that although his account had remained consistent in relation to these matters since the Referrer had made his complaint to the ARB, this was significantly different to the account he provided to the Referrer in his witness statement of 1 May 2021. The Committee was of the view that the Registered Person’s account, particularly in relation to the timeline, had firmed up over time. In the Committee’s view, this called in to question the reliability of the Registered Person’s recollection of events.

 

  1. The Committee was also of the view that the Registered Person’s explanation during his oral evidence that the wording he used in his email to the Referrer dated 17 January 2020 was a result of him using a template was not credible. Whilst the Committee accepted that the Registered Person may well have used a template and used standard paragraphs in the email, it was also apparent to the Committee that on any view, the Registered Person must have adapted the first paragraph as it reads:

“It was good to meet you both yesterday to go through your project and thank you for the enquiry with us…”

  1. The Committee further noted that the Registered Person went on to say in the email:

 

“I have put the quotation through our sister company, Urban Developments Ltd, as this is non VAT registered and appropriate given the scale of the works. Urban    Developments Ltd has the same insurances and accreditations as Urban Surveying     and Design Ltd but with the benefit that you won’t have to pay the VAT on top…”

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, the content of Registered Person’s email dated 17 January 2020 is more consistent with it being the first email he had sent to the Referrer following the site visit the previous day. The Committee was therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registered Person did not send the quote from Company A dated 16 January 2020 to the Referrer, and that it was more likely than not that the first quote the Referrer received from the Registered Person was the quote from Company A attached to the Registered Person’s email at 8.32am on 17 January 2020.

 

  1. The Committee noted Mr Goodwin’s submission that, if there had not been a meeting between the Referrer and Person A on 16 January 2020, that it would be inconceivable that the Referrer would not have sought clarification about why the Registered Person was putting the quote through Company A. The Committee was not persuaded by this argument and accepted the Referrer’s evidence that the explanation provided by the Registered Person in his email dated 17 January 2020 was self-explanatory and did not give him reason to ask further questions. The Committee was therefore of the view that it was more likely than not that the Referrer did not attend the premises of Company B during the afternoon of 16 January 2020.

 

  1. The Committee next considered each of the factual particulars alleged in support of the charge in turn.

 

  1. The Committee noted that the stem of particular (1) it alleges that “In or around January 2020 the Registered Person advised…”

 

  1. Before considering each of the sub-particulars (a)-(e), the Committee therefore considered whether the Registered Person’s actions constituted “advising” the Referrer. The Committee considered the context in which the contact between the Referrer and the Registered Person took place. The Referrer gave evidence to the Committee that he had wanted to engage a Chartered Architect in relation to an extension to his property and that he had made initial contact with the Registered Person by telephone as he was aware of Company B as being a local architectural practice. Following this initial contact, the Registered Person attended the Referrer’s property and met with the Referrer and his wife to discuss the scope of works. During this meeting, the Registered Person provided the Referrer with a business card, which stated that he was an Architect and a Director of Company B.

 

  1. The Committee noted that when the Registered Person sent the quote to the Referrer at 8.32am on 17 January 2020, he sent the email from his Company B email address. The quote from Company A that was attached to the email was created by the Registered Person. It was on a template that resembled paperwork provided by Company B. It was in the same font, had the same registered address and the company was described as “Chartered Building Surveyors, Chartered Architects and Project Managers.”. The quote also contained the logos for ‘RICS’, ‘RIBA’ and ‘ARB’.

 

  1. The Committee noted that in his email to the Referrer dated 17 January 2020, the Registered Person told the Referrer that he had put the quote through “our sister company” and stated the reason for doing so was due to the “scale of the works”. The Registered Person then provided reassurance to the Referrer that Company A had the same insurance and accreditation as Company B.

 

  1. The Committee noted that the Registered Person went on to provide a further email to the Referrer on 20 January 2020, in which he stated:

 

“…On these kinds of projects, we are not usually the cheapest around this area           however it is worth noting that we are chartered surveyors and architects accredited            with the RICS and RIBA and so we have a lot of experience within the industry and as               mentioned we can provide the structural calculation for the beam in the new opening        in the house…”

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, in this email, the Registered Person provided further reasons as to why the Referrer should proceed with the quote from Company A dated 17 January 2020.

 

  1. Having regard to these matters, the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the Registered Person’s actions amounted to providing advice to the Referrer to enter into a contract with Company A.

 

Particular (1)(a)-(e) – Found Proved

 

  1. The Committee considered whether the Registered Person provided any and/or any adequate information and/or advice in relation to each of these sub-particulars to the Referrer. In reaching its decisions, the Committee took into account the standards expected of a registered Architect to promote their practice in a truthful and responsible manner and to check that the information given to a client is accurate to enable that client to make an informed decision.

 

  1. In relation to sub-particular (1)(a) the Committee was satisfied that the correct name of Company A was Urban Developments UK Ltd and not Urban Developments Ltd. The Committee noted that the Registered Person stated that he relied on what he was told by Person A. However, the Committee further noted that the Registered Person did not take any steps to ascertain the correct name of Company A, even though Urban Developments UK Ltd appeared on some of the documentation, such as the invoices provided to the Referrer. The Committee was therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registered Person did not provide the Referrer with adequate information regarding the company name.

 

  1. In relation to sub-particular (1)(b) the Committee was satisfied that Company A was in fact a lettings business and not an architectural practice as represented to the Referrer. The Committee noted that the Registered Person stated that he relied on what he was told by Person A. However, the Committee further noted that the Registered Person did not take any steps to check the accuracy of what he was told by Person A even though it was the first time that he was aware of a client’s project being put through Company A. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registered Person did not provide the Referrer with adequate information regarding the nature of Company A’s business.

 

  1. In relation to sub-particular (1)(c) the Committee noted that during his evidence the Registered Person accepted that he was neither a Director nor employed by Company A. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person did not provide the Referrer with information to make this clear. The Committee therefore found this sub-particular proved on the balance of probabilities.

 

  1. In relation to sub-particular (1)(d) the Committee was satisfied on the evidence available to it that the architectural services under the Referrer’s contract with Company A would in fact be performed by Company B. The Committee was further satisfied that the Registered Person did not provide information to the Referrer explaining this. The Committee therefore found this sub-particular proved on the balance of probabilities.

 

  1. In relation to sub-particular (1)(e) the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person did not provide the Referrer with any information in relation to how the implications of sub particular (1)(d) might affect the Referrer’s ability to pursue a claim against Company A. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s representations in his emails dated 17 and 20 January 2020 would have caused the Referrer to believe that the architectural services on his project would be undertaken by Company A. The Committee therefore found this sub-particular proved on the balance of probabilities.

 

Particular (2) – Found Proved

 

  1. The Committee noted the content of the correspondence and invoices exhibited by the Referrer. The Committee was satisfied that there were multiple examples between 17 January and 1 April 2020, of the Registered Person sending correspondence to the Referrer that used the names of Company A and Company B. Examples include:
  2. In all email correspondence with the Referrer, the Registered Person used his Company B email address.
  3. Page 3 of the quote from Company A dated 17 January has references to Company B.

i) The privacy policy sent to the Referrer related to Company B.

ii) When the Registered Person sought to terminate the Referrer’s contract with Company A, he directed the Referrer to terms and conditions and complaints handling procedures of Company B.

iii) The Committee accepted the evidence of the Referrer that when he made a complaint and sought redress following issues that had arisen during the works, the references to both Company A and Company B caused confusion. The Committee noted that this had resulted in the Referrer having to make enquiries with Companies House, the RICS and the RIBA.

 

  1. The Committee therefore found particular (2) proved on the balance of probabilities.

 

Particular (3) – Found Proved

 

  1. The Committee noted that the quote from Company A dated 16 January 2020, prepared by the Registered Person, contained the words “Chartered Architects” and also contained the ARB logo. The Committee also noted the Registered Person’s evidence in answer to a question from a member of the Committee in relation to this. The Registered Person stated “this has come from a template that [Person A] has worked on with (Ms C). They put it all on. It would refer to me. I wasn’t a Director of that company, so it shouldn’t really be on there.” The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person should have been aware that these matters indicated to the Referrer that Company A employed and/or was managed by those registered with the ARB when this was not the case.

 

  1. The Committee was further satisfied that the Registered Person’s representations in his emails dated 17 and 20 January 2020 (as set out in paragraphs 66 and 67 above) perpetuated this incorrect impression.

 

  1. The Committee therefore found particular (3) proved on the balance of probabilities.

 

Particular 4(a) – Found Proved

 

  1. The Committee was mindful that having found particulars (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (2) and (3) proved, it must now consider whether the Registered Person’s actions in these particulars was misleading. The Committee gave the word ‘misleading’ its ordinary meaning.

 

  1. In relation to sub-particulars (1)(a), (1)(b) and (1)(c), the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the information provided to the Referrer in respect of each these matters was factually incorrect.

 

  1. Furthermore, the Committee accepted the Referrer’s evidence that he would not have entered into a contract with Company A had he known the true position. He explained that he was particularly keen to engage the services of a Chartered Architect due to a previous negative experience related to the purchase of a new build property.

 

  1. The Committee was therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registered Person’s actions in respect of each of these sub-particulars were misleading because the Registered Person had failed to undertake necessary steps expected of a Registered Architect to ensure that the information he was providing to a client was correct. His failure to do so resulted in the Referrer being misled.

 

  1. In relation to particular (2), the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person repeatedly sent correspondence to the Referrer that used the names of both Company A and Company B. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s lack of care and attention in this regard caused confusion and the lack of clarity was misleading.

 

  1. The Committee therefore found particular 4(a) proved on the balance of probabilities in relation to particular (2).

 

  1. In relation to particular (3) the Committee was satisfied that when the Registered Person sent the quote from Company A dated 17 January 2020 to the Referrer on 17 January 2020, the words “Chartered Architects” and the ARB logo were on the template. The Committee noted that during his oral evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person stated that and that they should not have been on there. The Committee further noted that in the Registered Person’s emails dated 17 and 20 January 2020, the Registered Person indicated to the Referrer that Company A had the same accreditations as Company B. During his evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person stated that he relied upon what he had been told by Person A. However, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person had no connection with Company A and any reference to the ARB could, in reality, have only related to him. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person had failed to consider the implications of these inaccuracies on the Referrer’s understanding of the status of Company A.

 

  1. The Committee therefore found particular 4(a) proved on the balance of probabilities in relation to particular (3).

 

Particular 4(b) – Found Proved in relation to particulars (1)(c) and (3) – Found Not Proved in relation to particulars (1)(a), (1)(b), and (2)

 

  1. The Committee next considered whether the Registered Person’s actions in relation to particulars (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (2) and (3) lacked integrity. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to the guidance provided in the case of Wingate and Evans v SRA and SRA v Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366. The Committee applied the following principles:

i) Integrity is a more nebulous concept than honesty.

ii) In professional codes of conduct, the term “integrity” is a useful shorthand to express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which the professions expect from their own members. The rationale is that the professions have a privileged and trusted role in society. In return, they are required to live up to their own professional standards.

iii) Integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession. That involves more than mere honesty.

iv) The duty to act with integrity applies not only to what professional persons say, but also to what they do. It is possible to give many illustrations of what constitutes acting without integrity.

v) The duty of integrity does not require professional people to be paragons of virtue. In every instance, professional integrity is linked to the manner in which that particular profession professes to serve the public.

vi) The Committee is a professional disciplinary tribunal with specialist knowledge of the architect’s profession and of the ethical standards of that profession. Accordingly, it is well placed to identify want of integrity.

vii) The requirement to act with integrity must be applied within the context of the relevant statutory framework, namely the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice. In this case the 2017 version of the Code is applicable.

 

  1. Insofar as particulars 1(a) and (1)(b) are concerned, the Committee accepted the Registered Person’s evidence that he believed that the correct name for Company A was Urban Developments Ltd as this was what he had been told by Person A. Furthermore, the Committee accepted the Registered Person’s evidence that he did not know that Company A was a lettings business and that his prior knowledge of the company was that it had been used in relation to work on Person A’s own properties. Whilst the Committee has found that the Registered Person’s actions in relation to these particulars was misleading, and in the Committee’s view he should have made further enquiries before he made representations to the Referrer, the Committee was not satisfied that they amounted to a lack of integrity on his part.

 

  1. The Committee therefore found particular 4(b) not proved in relation to particulars (1)(a) and (1)(b).

 

  1. In relation to particular (1)(c), the Committee noted that the Registered Person accepted that he was nether a Director nor employed by Company A. In the Committee’s view, whatever else the Registered Person understood about Company A, this would have been clear to him in January 2020. The Committee was also satisfied that the Registered Person was the only registered Architect at Company B. However, the Registered Person sent an email to the Referrer on 17 January 2020 in which he stated that Company A had the same accreditations as Company B. In addition, he sent a further email to the Referrer on 20 January 2020, in which he stated “we are chartered surveyors and architects” when seeking to explain the higher quote provided by Company A.

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, even if the Registered Person had originally relied upon what he was told by Person A, his failure to seek clarification from Person A, or to undertake any basic checks to verify the position, together with his subsequent failure to correct this misleading impression amounted to a lack of integrity on his part.

 

  1. The Committee therefore found particular 4(b) proved on the balance of probabilities was therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities in relation to particular (1)(c).

 

  1. Turning to particular (2), although the Registered Person’s actions caused confusion to the Referrer and were misleading, the Committee was of the view that this may have occurred as a result of the Registered Person using templates made available to him by Person A and Ms C. The Committee determined that although the Registered Person’s failure to identify and act upon the apparent inconsistencies suggested a lack of care and attention and poor practice, it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that it amounted to a lack of integrity on his part.

 

  1. The Committee therefore found particular 4(b) in relation to particular (2) not proved.

 

  1. In relation to particular (3), the Committee was satisfied that when the Registered Person sent the quote from Company A dated 17 January 2020 to the Referrer on 17 January 2020, the words “Chartered Architects” and the ‘ARB’ logo were on the template he used to create the quote. The Committee noted that in his oral evidence, the Registered Person stated “this has come from a template that (Person A) has worked on with (Ms C). They put it all on. It would refer to me. I wasn’t a Director of that company, so it shouldn’t really be on there.” The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person should have been aware that these matters indicated to the Referrer that Company A employed and/or was managed by those registered with the ARB when this was not the case.

 

  1. The Committee further noted that in the Registered Person’s emails dated 17 and 20 January 2020, the Registered Person indicated to the Referrer that Company A had the same accreditations as Company B. During his evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person stated that he relied upon what he had been told by Person A. However, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person had no connection with Company A and any reference to the ARB could, in reality, have only related to him.

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, even if the Registered Person had originally relied upon what he was told by Person A, his failure to seek clarification from Person A, or to undertake any basic checks to verify the position, together with his subsequent failure to correct this misleading impression amounted to a lack of integrity on his part.

 

  1. The Committee therefore found on the balance of probabilities, particular 4(b) proved in relation to particular (3).

 

Decision on UPC

  1. Having found particulars (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)d), (2), (3), 4(a) and 4(b)in relation to particulars (1)(c) and (3) of the charge proved, the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to UPC.

 

  1. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter and from Mr Goodwin.

 

  1. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair.

 

  1. The Committee 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.

 

  1. The Committee noted 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.

 

  1. The Committee further noted that Misconduct, which is akin to UPC, was defined in the case of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1 AC 311 as:

“a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”.

 

  1. In the Registered Person’s case, the charge relates to matters that occurred in 2020. Therefore, the standards required to be followed by the Registered Person are contained in The Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017.

 

  1. 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 result in a finding of UPC. However, a failure to follow the guidance of the Code, whether in one’s professional or private life, is a factor that will be taken into account should it be necessary to examine the conduct or competence of an architect.

 

  1. The Committee had regard to the case of Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin) and noted 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” is required.

 

  1. The Committee also recognised that any failing must be serious. Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin).

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s actions as set out in the factual particulars found proved breached the following standards expected of a registered architect:

 

Standard 1

       Honesty and Integrity

       1.1 You are expected at all times to act with honesty and integrity and to avoid

       any actions or situations which are inconsistent with your professional obligations.   This standard underpins the Code and will be taken to be required in any             consideration of your conduct under any of the other standards.

 

Standard 3

       Honest promotion of your services

       3.1 You are expected to promote your professional services in a truthful and         responsible manner.

       3.3 The business style of a practice should not be misleading.

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, the manner in which the Registered Person acted when approached by the Referrer to provide architectural services in relation to a proposed single-storey side extension to the Referrer’s property, fell short of the standards expected of a registered Architect and exposed the Referrer to unnecessary risk. The Committee was satisfied that as a consequence of the Registered Person’s misleading actions, the Referrer entered into a contract with Company A. Unfortunately, when issues subsequently arose as the building works progressed, the fact that Company A was in fact a lettings business and not an architectural practice has made the Referrer’s ability to seek redress difficult.

 

  1. The Committee took into account its findings in relation to the Registered Person’s lack of integrity in relation at particular 4(b). The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s breached Standard 1.1 of the Code. In the Committee’s view, integrity is a core tenet of the profession. The Code makes clear that integrity underpins the other Standards contained in the Code. In the Committee’s view, members of the public must be able to rely upon a Registered architect to behave with integrity.

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s actions have damaged public confidence and were capable of bringing the wider architects’ profession into disrepute.

 

  1. The Committee was further satisfied that the Registered Person’s actions at particulars 1(a)-(e), (2), (3) and 4(a) breached Standards 3.1 and 3.3 of the Code.

 

  1. The Committee considered that another member of the profession would regard the Registered Person’s failure to act with integrity and in accordance with Standards 3.1 and 3.3 of the Code as a serious falling short of the standards expected of a Registered architect.

 

  1. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the Registered Person’s actions as found proved in particulars (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)d), (2), (3), 4(a) and 4(b) in relation to particulars (1)(c) and (3) amounted to serious failings both individually and cumulatively, and that the Registered Person actions fell short of the standards expected of a registered Architect.

 

  1. For the reasons set out above, the Committee found the Registered Person guilty of UPC.

 

Decision on Sanction

 

  1. Having found the Registered Person guilty of UPC, the Committee considered whether to impose a sanction, and if so, which one.

 

  1. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter and from Mr Goodwin.

 

  1. Mr Goodwin also called the Registered Person to give further evidence to the Committee at this stage of the hearing.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated that he fully accepted the Committee’s decision in relation to the facts and its finding that he was guilty of UPC. The Registered Person apologised for his actions stated that he was sorry for any distress his actions had caused to the Referrer.

 

  1. The Registered Person stated that it is a privilege to be a registered architect and that he understood that membership of the profession comes with responsibilities. He told the Committee that, as a registered professional, he would be held to higher standards by members of the public.

 

  1. The Registered Person told the Committee that his actions of three years ago will not be repeated. He was asked if he could go back three years, what would he have done differently? The Registered Person stated that he would definitely have done more to check the accuracy of the information provided to him by Person A. He stated that if he had realised it was incorrect, he would have told Person A he was not prepared to be involved and would have sought to persuade Person A to proceed in a different way. The Registered Person stated that he was unhappy with the dynamic at Company B and that he found it difficult to stand up to Person A. He stated that the actions of Person A were the main reason he left the practice.

 

  1. The Registered Person told the Committee that since he left Company B, he has worked for Cohen Architects Ltd and that he set up his own practice in June 2022. He stated that during this time, he has undertaken his core CPD through RIBA and has also undertaken additional CPD courses through various providers. He told the Committee that he is the sole Director of his current practice and that he has a mixture of commercial and private clients.

 

  1. The Registered Person was asked what steps he now takes to ensure that documentation and invoicing sent to clients is accurate. He stated that he works closely with his accountant, with whom he has weekly meetings. He told the Committee that he recently became VAT registered and was following all of his accountant’s advice and also seeking guidance from HM Government and other websites. He stated that there have been no difficulties in relation to the accuracy of information being provided to clients since he set up his practice.

 

  1. The Registered Person was asked what he would do if he found himself working with someone of a similar temperament to Person A in the future. He stated that would now be able to stand up to that kind of person as a result of developing himself both personally and professionally. The Registered Person referred the Committee to the content of medical evidence in the letter of support provided by Mr B. [REDACTED] He told the Committee that he was in a much better place going forward. He also told the Committee that he would also be able to mitigate the risk further by not getting in a similar situation in the future. He stated that he now believes that he can identify that type of person.

 

  1. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to its decisions and reasoning at the fact-finding and UPC stages of this hearing. The Committee had regard to all of the evidence provided to it, including the further oral evidence from the Registered Person. The Committee had regard to and applied the Sanctions Guidance (2022) published by the ARB and accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair.

 

  1. 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 it may have a punitive effect. It has taken into account the Registered Person’s interests and the need to act proportionately.

 

  1. The Committee noted that the Act does not require the Committee to impose a sanction in every case where a guilty finding is reached. If it decides to impose a sanction, then the sanctions available to the Committee are:

i) A Reprimand;

ii) A Penalty Order (limited to level 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences, currently set at £2,500);

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

iv) Erasure

 

  1. In accordance with the Sanctions Guidance, the Committee first considered the seriousness of the case.

 

  1. The Committee identified the following aggravating factors:

i) The Committee has found that the Registered Person’s actions not only exposed the Referrer to the risk of harm but have caused actual harm (as set out in paragraph 113 of this decision).

 

  1. The Committee identified the following mitigating factors:

i) The conduct underlying the Committee’s finding of UPC related to a single client over a relatively brief period of time in an otherwise unblemished career.

ii) During his evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person expressed genuine remorse for his actions.

iii) The Registered Person has demonstrated insight into his failings in respect of the impact of his actions on the Referrer and to the reputation of the profession.

iv) The Committee was satisfied that at the time of the conduct underlying the Committee’s finding of UPC, the Registered Person was working in an environment where he felt professionally undermined.

v) The Registered Person has taken steps to remediate his failings. [REDACTED] he took the radical step of leaving his employment at Company B in August 2020, he tried to assist the Referrer with his on-going dispute with Person A, when contacted and asked to provide a witness statement in April 2021, and he has taken positive steps to change his professional practice and now ensures the accuracy of all information before it is provided to clients.

vi) The Registered Person is of previous good character.

vii) The Registered Person has provided a number of testimonials and statements from character witnesses.

 

  1. In the Committee’s view, any finding of UPC involving a lack of integrity is serious for the reasons previously given within this determination. However, the Committee was mindful that a finding of a lack of integrity encompasses a wide spectrum of situations. In this case, the Committee’s findings were that the Registered Person’s actions were misleading. Furthermore, his failure to seek clarification from Person A, or to undertake any basic checks to verify the information he was given, together with his subsequent failure to correct the misleading impression amounted to a lack of integrity in respect of two of the factual particulars. In the Committee’s view, there was no intention and no deliberate act on the part of the Registered Person to mislead the Referrer.

 

  1. Having regard to the above, and taking into account the specific aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case, the Committee therefore considered that even though the Registered Person’s UPC involved a lack of integrity, it was towards the lower end of the spectrum of such cases.

 

  1. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person has expressed genuine remorse and has demonstrated that he has insight into his failings. The Committee was further satisfied that the Registered Person had provided evidence of remediation.

 

  1. The Committee acknowledged and accepted the Letter of Support provided by Mr B. [REDACTED]

 

  1. [REDACTED]

 

  1. [REDACTED]alongside the oral evidence provided by the Registered Person, provided the Committee with insight into the steps the Registered Person had taken, both contemporaneous and subsequent to the allegations, in terms of developing the personal characteristics required to deal with any events such as those described by the Registered Person during his time at Company B.

 

  1. The Committee was provided with several testimonials that spoke positively of the Registered Person’s past and current practice as an architect. It noted in particular that the Registered Person was described by a co-director of an architectural firm as “a man of…. honesty and integrity, who has always been highly professional in his approach”. Similarly, the Head of Construction at a development firm described him as someone who “treated all of his clients, colleagues and consultant…with…respect and professionalism and was even nicknamed ‘the professional’ in our office”. The Committee considered that this reinforced its view that the events in January and February 2020 that led to the allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct were of brief duration and were neither evident in the Registered Person’s previous career nor likely to be repeated in his future work as an architect.

 

  1. Having regard to the above matters, the Committee was satisfied that the risk of repetition of the conduct leading to the finding of UPC in this case was low. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that a sanction was not required on the grounds of public protection.

 

  1. As the Committee has previously observed, integrity is a core tenet of the profession and underpins all of the Standards in the Code. The Registered Person’s conduct has damaged public confidence and was capable of bringing the profession into disrepute.

 

  1. The Committee therefore determined that it should consider whether or not to impose a sanction to uphold public confidence in the profession, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and competence.

 

  1. The Committee recognised that it is not necessary to impose a sanction in every case where there has been a finding of UPC. However, in the Committee’s view, the UPC in this case is too serious for it to impose no sanction.

 

  1. Having determined that it is necessary to impose a sanction, the Committee considered each available sanction in ascending order of severity.

 

  1. The Committee first considered whether to impose a Reprimand. The Committee noted that a reprimand is the least severe sanction that can be applied. It may be used in relation to cases which fall at the lower end of the scale of seriousness, and where it would be appropriate to mark the conduct of an architect as being unacceptable. Having regard to the facts of this case, the Committee concluded that a reprimand would not be sufficient to maintain confidence in the reputation of the profession or to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.

 

  1. The Committee therefore went on to consider the imposition of a Penalty Order. The Committee had regard to the list of factors identified in the Sanctions Guidance as to when this may be an appropriate sanction and noted that this sanction may be considered where the offence is too serious to warrant a Reprimand.

 

  1. The Committee decided that in the particular circumstances of this case, a Penalty Order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account its previous finding that the risk of repetition of the UPC in this case was low and that therefore the main purpose of the sanction was not to protect the public but to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. The Committee was satisfied that a Penalty Order would meet those public interest requirements. The Committee was also satisfied that a finding of UPC by this Committee and a Penalty Order would be the proportionate sanction in this case.

 

  1. The Committee noted that its powers are limited to fines of up to level 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences, currently set at £2,500. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that given the seriousness of this case, it would be appropriate and proportionate to impose a penalty order for the maximum amount permitted.

 

  1. In reaching this decision, the Committee gave very careful consideration to the imposition of a Suspension Order. However, having regards to the mitigation available to the Registered Person, including his genuine remorse, his insight, the steps he has taken to remediate his failings, and the compelling evidence contained in the testimonials, the Committee was persuaded that it would be disproportionate to impose a Suspension Order in his case.

 

  1. The Committee therefore imposes a Penalty Order in the sum of £2,500. This must be paid by the Registered Person within 56 days, with an initial payment of £1,250 within 28 days.

 

 

 

 


Download this page as a PDF