Mr Nic Antony

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
_______________

In the matter of:

NIC ANTONY (067342K)

Held via video conference on:

21-25, 28 and 31 July 2025
_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Legally Qualified Chair)
Stuart Carr (Architect Member)
Alastair Cannon (Lay Member)
_______________

 

In this case, the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) is represented by Mr Felix Keating (“the Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Mr Nic Antony (“the Registered Person”) attended this hearing and is represented by Mr James Hatt instructed by DAC Beachcroft.

 

Preliminary issues

Amendment to Particular 5

1. Particular 5 was originally drafted as follows;

(5) On or around 4 January 2024 the Registered Person contacted EPC, a roofing company, and he:

a) suggested to them that he was working at the Referrer’s property when that was no longer the case;
b) requested information and/or documentation relating to EPC’s involvement in the project when he was not entitled to that information.

2. The Case Presenter confirmed that having reviewed submissions made on behalf of the Registered Person prior to the hearing the ARB considered that it was no longer appropriate to proceed with particular 5(b) as there was no prohibition against the Registered Person having an entitlement to the documents in question. Both parties invited the Committee to utilise Rule 26 of the Professional Conduct Committee Rules 2022 (“the Rules”) which permits the amendment of particulars as long as the amendment can be made without injustice. The Committee was content that the amendment could be made without injustice to either party and that it would simplify the terms of Particular 5.

“Bad Character” application

3. The Presenter applied to admit as evidence under Rule 19 of the Rules a prior Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) finding of a lack of integrity against the Registered Person dating from July 2022 (“the bad character evidence”). The Presenter conceded that the application was very late and that he required permission to allow the admission of the evidence from the Committee under Rule 20 as the evidence was not referred to in a notice served on the Registered Person in accordance with the Rules.

4. In summary, the Presenter submitted that the bad character evidence was demonstrative of a propensity to act without integrity which he described as a “character trait” of the Registered Person. He also referred to a specific finding of the 2022 PCC Committee that an explanation provided by the Registered Person had changed over time, which he submitted was similar to conduct in these allegations. The Presenter also submitted that the 2022 PCC finding could support the allegation of dishonesty, although he conceded that the 2022 PCC finding did not reach a finding of dishonesty against the Registered Person.

5. The Presenter submitted that any unfairness could be mitigated by the Registered Person being able to give evidence upon the 2022 finding so that he could explain why it was not relevant to the current case. The Presenter accepted that he would also be able to cross examine the Registered Person on the same issue and that it would be for the Committee to determine what weight to attach to the evidence.

6. The reason for the lateness of the application was simply explained as being an oversight on the part of ARB’s solicitors.

7. Mr Hatt, on behalf of the Registered Person, opposed the application on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the Committee ought not allow the very late admission of this evidence without a compelling reason for the delay. Secondly, he opposed the application on the basis that the evidence had no direct relevance to the issues before the Committee and referred to the case of McLennan v General Medical Council (2020) CSIH 12 which, strongly urged against the general admissibility of bad character evidence in proceedings such as this.

8. The Committee considered the submissions and concluded that the ARB had not provided a good reason why the application was made so late keeping in mind the comments in the case of McLennan that a tribunal should avoid being deflected into peripheral issues especially as they may create delay. The suggestion that the Registered Person could give evidence about the 2022 matters and be cross-examined demonstrated the likelihood of prolonging these proceedings by deflecting the Committee from its purpose. In any event, the Committee was not satisfied that there was sufficient relevance in the previous PCC finding. There was no similarity between the facts of the conduct alleged in the instant proceedings and those in 2022 and its admission would have great prejudicial effect.

9. In summary, the Committee found that permission should not be granted for the late admission of this evidence under Rule 20 and the evidence would not have satisfied the hearing panel that it should be admitted as its admission would be neither fair nor relevant and so not in accordance with Rule 19.

10. Having reached this decision the Chair provided assurance to the Registered Person that the Committee could continue to hear this case fairly and would put from its mind the 2022 PCC finding when considering the evidence in this case at the fact-finding stage (Stage 1) and UPC stage (Stage 2). No application to adjourn or for the Committee to recuse itself was made.

Allegation (as amended)

11. The Registered Person faces an allegation that he is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC). The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) relies upon the following particulars in support of the allegation:

(1) The Registered Person did not keep his knowledge of local authority guidance and policy up to date;

(2) The Registered Person did not provide his client with adequate advice in relation to a planning application;

(3) On 17 November 2023 the Registered Person provided documentation to the Architects Registration Board (ARB) in respect of a planning application made in around October 2021 and that documentation contained information that was not provided to the local authority at the time that the application was originally made in around October 2021;

(4) On 17 November 2023 the Registered Person provided documentation to the ARB in respect of a pre application made in around February 2022 and that documentation contained information that was not provided to the local authority at the time that the application was originally made in February 2022;

(5) On or around 4 January 2024 the Registered Person contacted EPC, a roofing company, and he suggested to them that he was working at the Referrer’s property when that was no longer the case;

(6) The Registered Person’s actions at allegation 3 and/or 4 and 5:
a) were misleading and or;
b) lacked integrity and or;
c) were dishonest.

Background

12. Ms Sharma (“the Referrer”), appointed the Registered Person to assist her in preparing drawings for a proposed development of her home address (“the property”). In October 2021 a planning application was made to the local planning authority. That application was rejected because a sustainability checklist was not included. It is not contested that the Registered person was unaware of the requirement for such a checklist and he conceded his error at the time to the Referrer.

13. In February 2022 the Registered Person submitted a pre-planning application to the same Council and attached with that application a completed sustainability checklist. That “pre-application” was also returned by the Council with comment that it had not sufficiently dealt with a local policy (H1F). That policy related to the preservation of bungalows in order to meet local needs.

14. Later in 2022 the Referrer lost faith in the Registered Person and on 10 August 2022 she complained to him and requested a full refund on the basis that the applications made by the Registered Person were not fit for submission. On 14 September 2022 the Referrer made a complaint to the ARB in similar terms.

15. During the course of the ARB investigation a request was made by Kingsley Napley solicitors on behalf of the ARB asking the Registered Person to provide all of the documentation that had accompanied both the October 2021 planning application and the February 2022 pre-application.

16. The Registered Person responded to this request on 17 November 2023 enclosing various documents including drawings, photographs, application forms and in respect of both applications the sustainability checklist.

17. The ARB solicitors identified some discrepancies between the material provided by the Registered Person and the material provided by the Council. Notably, the sustainability checklist was provided by the Registered Person as part of the purported documentation that was sent alongside the October 2021 planning application. It was evident from the previous correspondence between the Registered Person and the Referrer that the checklist could not have accompanied the October 2021 application.

18. Furthermore, upon closer scrutiny, Kingsley Napley were able to identify a number of other small discrepancies between the drawings and supporting statements that the Council provided and the same drawings and statements that the Registered Person provided. Their suspicion was that the Registered Person had tampered with the documentation to provide a more favourable impression as to the quality of the applications he made in 2021 and 2022.

19. ARB instructed an Inquirer, Mr Sam Morley, who provided an expert opinion as to the competence of the Registered Person in respect of the advice given to the Referrer and the preparation of the planning applications in 2021 and 2022. The Inquirer concluded that he had seen no evidence that the Registered Person had properly discussed policy H1F with the Referrer and that the Registered Person should have been aware of the requirement to comply with this policy and to include a sustainability checklist prior to making either of the applications. In his opinion, the Registered Person had fallen far short of the standards required of a competent architect.

20. On 4 January 2024 the Registered Person telephoned Mr David Pratt (“Mr Pratt”), a roofing contractor. Mr Pratt had worked on the Referrer’s property after the Registered Person had been dismissed by the Referrer. As part of a civil claim against the Registered Person, the Referrer had included the full cost of repairing the roof as part of her claim.

21. During the call Mr Pratt says that the Registered Person informed him that he was working at the Referrer’s address and was in the process of preparing drawings. Mr Pratt told the Registered Person some details about the work he had done for the Referrer but became suspicious when the Registered Person asked him for a copy of the invoice for that work. Following the call, Mr Pratt informed the Referrer about the call who, in turn, notified the solicitors for ARB. The allegation is that the Registered Person suggested to Mr Pratt that he was still engaged at the property when he knew that was untrue.

22. The Registered Person responded to the allegations and accepted that the documents provided to the ARB were incorrect but denied that he had deliberately provided false documentation. He denied that his advice to the Referrer had fallen far short of proper standards and asserted that he had acted reasonably in his advice and in respect of his preparation of the planning applications in 2021 and 2022.

Stage 1 – Fact Finding

Amendment of Particulars 2 and 3 During Stage 1

23. After the evidence of the Referrer and the witness, Mr Pratt, had been completed, the Presenter called the expert witness, Mr Sam Morley. Mr Morley had been instructed to act as Inquirer during the investigation of the Registered Person and had produced a lengthy and detailed report into the issues that had arisen between the Registered Person and the Referrer regarding the various planning and preplanning applications that had been made. On being asked whether he wished to adopt his report, Mr Morley stated that he would wish to make some amendments notably to his conclusions regarding his assessment of the falling short of the Registered Person.

24. Mr Morley had reviewed the oral evidence of the Referrer and the documents that had been put to her in cross-examination. On reflection, he was satisfied that the Referrer had been advised about the nature of the October 2021 planning application that the Registered Person was submitting on her behalf and had been provided with drawings that set out the essence of that application for her approval.

25. He also reviewed his assessment of the falling short of the Registered Person in respect of Particulars 1 and 2 and concluded that rather than falling “far below” the standards of a reasonably competent architect, as set out in his report, the falling short was in his opinion “not far below”.

26. In light of that concession, the Presenter conceded that there was no prospect of Particulars 1 and 2 amounting to Unacceptable Professional Conduct (“UPC”) if proved and applied to the Committee to amend the particulars of the charge to remove Particulars 1 and 2 from the allegation. The Chair advised the Committee of the terms of Rule 26 that such an amendment can be made provided it can be made “without injustice”. Mr Hatt supported the application and the Committee agreed that the amendment should be made.

Findings of Fact – Stage 1

27. The PCC Rules make it clear that the burden of proof at the fact-finding stage is on the ARB. So, it is for the ARB to prove the factual particulars set out in the allegation. It is not for the Registered Person to disprove them.

28. The ARB must prove the charges on the balance of probabilities, another way of putting that is, ‘is it more likely than not that the allegations occurred as alleged?’.

29. The Committee will take into account the established case law that, although the standard of proof always remains the same, namely on the balance of probabilities, the more serious the charge then it is inherently less likely to have been committed so the more cogent the evidence needed to prove it.

30. In this case, on the allegation being read, the Registered Person made formal admissions to particulars 3 and 4 and these are found proved in accordance with Rule 25(d).

31. The Registered Person denied particulars 5 and 6. The first step for the Committee is to consider Particular 5, as that is the sole remaining disputed factual particular. Only when a finding has been reached in relation to Particular 5 can that finding, and the admitted Particulars 3 and 4, be applied to Particular 6 and each particular assessed against the allegation that the Registered Person’s actions were misleading, lacking in integrity or were dishonest.

32. In coming to its findings, the Committee considered the written documentation provided by the ARB and the Registered Person together with the oral evidence of the Referrer, the witness Mr Pratt and the Registered Person. The Committee also took into account the submissions made by the Presenter on behalf of the ARB and Mr Hatt on behalf of the Registered Person.

33. The Committee received and accepted the legal advice provided by the Chair that the committee should adopt and apply the ordinary meaning of the term “misleading”, namely that something is misleading if it gives the wrong idea or impression.

34. When considering conduct that lacks integrity, the Committee was advised by the Chair to apply the judgment in the Court of Appeal case Wingate and Evans v Solicitors Regulation Authority which was heard together with the case of SRA v Malins reported at 2018 EWCA 366 which confirmed that integrity is a broader concept than honesty, hence it is less easy to define 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.

35. The underlying rationale is that the professions have a privileged and trusted role in society and in return they are required to live up to their own professional standards. Integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession. A professional disciplinary tribunal has specialist knowledge of the profession to which the Registered Person belongs and of the ethical standards of that profession. Accordingly, such a body is well placed to identify lack of integrity.

36. In the case of Batra v Financial Conduct Authority (2015) EWCA Civ 394, Batra was found to lack integrity because he was reckless as to the accuracy of financial information that he had put into mortgage application forms. It was not clear that he knew the amounts were wrong, but it was clear that he did not bother to check. As such, his disregard for whether the contents of a mortgage application were correct demonstrated a clear lack of integrity. A professional person is expected to take particular care not to mislead and to be even more scrupulous about accuracy than a member of the general public in daily discourse.

37. The test for dishonesty is set out in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) UKSC 67. It is a two-part test. First, the Committee must determine, subjectively, what was the genuinely held state of mind of the Registered Person as to the facts and, secondly, whether the Registered Person’s conduct would be considered dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people.

38. The Committee then proceeded to consider each of the disputed particulars in turn and makes its findings of fact as follows.

Particular 5

39. The evidence relating to Particular 5 is a direct conflict between the recollections of the Registered Person and those of the witness, Mr Pratt. Mr Pratt adopted his witness statement dated 19 December 2024 as his evidence in chief. He was carefully cross-examined by Mr Hatt on behalf of the Registered Person. In his witness statement Mr Pratt provided a recollection of a telephone conversation with the Registered Person that had taken place on 4 January 2024, some 11 months prior to making his statement. His oral evidence given at the hearing took place a further eight months after he had signed his witness statement.

40. Mr Pratt conceded that his recollection of what exactly was said in the telephone conversation was less than perfect. He could remember certain themes that had arisen during the conversation but not the precise wording. Mr Pratt was able to say that his recollection when giving his oral evidence was about as good as when he provided his witness statement.

41. Mr Pratt’s evidence in his witness statement set out that during the conversation on 4th January 2024 the Registered Person introduced himself with his full name and “said he was working at 72 [redacted] Drive”. In cross-examination, Mr Pratt accepted that he could not be sure about that precise wording and when it was suggested to him that the wording might have been “I have been working on [redacted] Drive” he said that he “could not remember exactly”.

42. The themes that Mr Pratt could recall from the conversation were that the Registered Person had said to him;

i. that there was “lots of work to do” at the property,
ii. that he was “in the process of preparing some drawings”,
iii. that he “needed to know exactly what work (Mr Pratt) had done…so he didn’t duplicate any work”

43. Mr Pratt was not challenged on his recollection of these themes during cross examination. The Committee finds that Mr Pratt’s recollection of these themes was credible and reliable. His inability to remember the precise wording of the conversation is entirely understandable given the passage of time, but his recall of the themes advanced during the conversation and that the Registered Person was discussing the property in the context of his having “work to do” and being “in the process of preparing drawings” were clearly suggesting that the Registered Person was working at the property at the time of the conversation.

44. The Registered Person gave evidence about the conversation and provided an account in a witness statement dated 30 June 2025 that included an attestation that he believed the facts in his witness statement to be true and was signed by him.

45. His assertion was that he explained to Mr Pratt that he had been previously engaged on the property and wanted to know more about the work that Mr Pratt had undertaken. At that point in time the Registered Person was aware that the Referrer was contemplating a civil claim against him and that claim included the cost of the roof repairs. That knowledge he obtained after receiving a letter from the Referrer’s solicitors on 4 October 2023. A copy of that letter was exhibited within the ARB bundle and set out a schedule of loss that included the roof works undertaken by Mr Pratt. The letter purports to attach a number of invoices including an email invoice from Mr Pratt’s roofing company.

46. Further, an e-mail that passed from the Registered Person to Mr Pratt had been provided to all parties in the week preceding the hearing. That exhibit had been mistakenly left out of the bundle, but was an exhibit referred to in the statement of Mr Pratt and comprised an email he received from the Registered Person that had followed the conversation of 4 January 2024. Within that email the Registered Person confirmed the general content of the earlier telephone conversation and made a request for the invoice that Mr Pratt had presented to the Referrer for the roofing work undertaken at the property.

47. At the outset of the Registered Person’s oral evidence he sought to adopt his witness statement as his evidence in chief but made a number of amendments. The most significant amendment was to redact the final sentence of paragraph 92 (replicated in full below).

92. I understand that the ARB obtained a statement from [Mr DP] of EPC. In his statement, [Mr DP] confirms that I did not expressly state that I was working for the Referrer. He further acknowledges that I enquired about the work EPC had carried out at the Property which is accurate. [Mr DP] also notes that I asked for a copy of the invoice of the works undertaken. However, this is not correct as I had received the invoice in question already from the Referrer and therefore had no reason to request it again.

48. The Registered Person explained that this was simply a mistake and the sentence should not have been in his statement. He stated in oral evidence that he did not, in fact, have a copy of the invoice at the time of the 4 January 2024 conversation. In cross examination by the Presenter on behalf of the ARB it was suggested that he amended the statement because he realised, with the late emergence of the email exhibit, that he would be caught out in a lie. The Registered Person resisted this suggestion stating that it was simply a matter that he overlooked when he checked the correctness of the witness statement that he submitted to the ARB in these proceedings. He stated that he had always been aware of the existence of the email because he had sent it to Mr Pratt. He became aware of this error on the first day of the hearing.

49. The ARB suggestion is that the Registered Person has deliberately manipulated his evidence in order to accommodate new evidence. The Registered Person asserts that he had simply overlooked the error in his statement before signing it. The Committee gives the Registered Person the benefit of the doubt and accepts his version.

50. The Registered Person acknowledged that the solicitor’s letter from the Referrer that he had received in October 2023 purported to include the invoice that he said he did not have in his possession. He asserted in oral evidence that the letter did not include that invoice, but he could not provide an explanation as to why he did not approach the solicitor to get a copy other than he wished to have a detailed discussion about the roofing work with Mr Pratt and that the solicitor would not be able to assist with that.

51. When the Registered Person was cross examined by the Presenter as to whether the themes referred to by Mr Pratt had featured in the telephone conversation of 4 January 2024 he stated that he did not say he was in the “process of preparing drawings”, he could not recall saying anything about having “work to do” and that he did not say anything about not wanting to “duplicate work”.

52. The Committee prefers the evidence of Mr Pratt in relation to the themes that he says were raised by the Registered Person during the conversation on 4 January 2024 and could see no reason why Mr Pratt would have either invented or misremembered such specific themes. The Committee noted further that Mr Pratt had a strong reason to remember the conversation in that he had felt sufficiently concerned about the Registered Person’s approach to him such as to immediately contact the Referrer about it and relay the conversation to her: this is not in dispute. The Committee also accepted Mr Pratt’s evidence that it was because of these suggestions that he provided a description to him during the call of the work he had done at the Referrer’s property. The Committee considered that this was further consistent with why during that conversation Mr Pratt had baulked at supplying the invoice requested, because, if the Registered Person was at that point engaged on the project, the Registered Person could simply obtain the invoice, if it was required, from the Referrer herself. We note that Mr Pratt was not cross examined on these themes by Mr Hatt for the Registered Person. The Committee is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registered Person did raise these themes during the conversation and that the suggestion that he was engaged in “preparing drawings” and that there was “work to do” and that he wished to “avoid duplicate work” clearly suggested that the Registered Person was, at that point in time, working at the Referrer’s property when that was no longer the case.

53. The Committee finds Particular 5 proved.

Particular 6

54. Particular 6 requires the Committee to consider the findings as regards the Registered Person’s actions at each of the Particulars 3, 4 and 5 and to reach a determination as to whether these actions;

i. 6(a) were misleading,
ii. 6(b) lacked integrity or
iii. 6(c) were dishonest.

55. In respect of Particulars 3 and 4 the Committee noted that these were factual particulars admitted by the Registered Person and relate to documents sent to ARB on the same day. The Committee has considered how Particular 6 applies to Particular 3 and 4 together.

56. The Registered Person stated that when he responded to a request for documents made by ARB during the investigation that he created a Dropbox link into which various documents relating to the October 2021 planning application and the February 2022 preplanning application could be placed. His evidence is that he did not check the content of the folders that were placed into the link, but he accepts that they did not include the actual documents that had accompanied either application.

57. The Committee is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the inclusion of incorrect documents purporting to have been the documents that accompanied the 2021 and 2022 planning applications would give a false impression and therefore would be misleading. The Committee rejected the assertion by Mr Hatt on behalf of the Registered Person that something can only be misleading if the recipient is misled.

58. The Committee is satisfied that, in respect of particulars 3 and 4, the Registered Person’s actions were misleading and therefore satisfy Particular 6(a).

59. The Committee noted the inclusion of the sustainability checklist as part of the documents purporting to have accompanied the October 2021 planning application. It had always been the Registered Person’s position that he had not included this checklist in October 2021 Planning Application and the inclusion of the checklist in the documents sent to the ARB was an obvious mistake on his part. The Committee noted that the Registered Person repeated throughout his ongoing correspondence with ARB during the investigation of the Referrer’s complaint that the checklist was not sent with the October 2021 application.

60. The Committee also noted the submissions made by Mr Hatt on behalf of the Registered Person that the small changes made to some of the drawings could not be consistent with somebody trying to misrepresent the situation and might be more consistent with minor tweaks to previous iterations of similar drawings with a view to utilising the improved drawings at some later stage. Unfortunately, the Registered Person was unable to recall why he had made small and subtle changes to some of the drawings. However, the Committee is minded to prefer the submissions made on his behalf that it is more likely that the changes were made with a view to potential future applications on the same property than to deceive.

61. The 2022 pre-planning application that had been sent to the Council planning office was only slightly different to the version that had been provided to ARB by the Registered Person. The content of that document remained largely identical and the only material difference was that reference was made to policy “H1F” on two occasions. The Committee accepts the Registered Person’s submissions that the amendment is likely to have been a subtle change made by the Registered Person to improve the clarity of the document with a view to potentially using it for a future application.

62. The Committee was mindful of the legal guidance provided by the Chair regarding the need for professional people to be scrupulous as to the attention to detail that they should employ. The Registered Person knew that he was corresponding with his regulator as part of an investigation following a complaint by the Referrer. He should have been aware of the importance of responding to his regulator with care and scrupulous attention to detail.

63. The Registered Person’s evidence is that he did not carry out any form of check as to the correctness or otherwise of the documents that he provided to ARB. He stated that they were in computer folders relating to the property that he described as being in a state of chaos. He accepted that he was responsible for that state of affairs.

64. The Committee is satisfied that his failure to ensure that he provided accurate and correct information to his regulator demonstrated a lack of integrity, therefore satisfying particular 6(b).

65. In determining whether the Registered Person’s actions were dishonest the Committee applied the test as set out in the case of Ivey. On the balance of probabilities, the Committee is not satisfied that the Registered Person’s genuinely held state of mind as to the facts was that he believed he was sending incorrect documents to ARB. The Committee is satisfied that he simply did not make the appropriate checks. Sending the documents in such circumstances would not be considered dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. Therefore, Particular 6(c) is not proved in respect of Particulars 3 and 4.

66. In relation to Particular 5 the Committee is satisfied that the Registered Person suggested during the telephone conversation with Mr Pratt that he was currently working at the Referrer’s property when that was not the case. This suggestion created a false impression and was misleading, thereby satisfying Particular 6(a).

67. Similarly, falsely suggesting that he was currently engaged on a project with which he was no longer engaged displayed a lack of integrity. Such conduct does not meet the high standards which society expects from professional persons and which the architecture profession would expect from its own members. Therefore Particular 6(b) is proved in respect of Particular 5.

68. The Committee is satisfied that the Registered Person’s subjective state of mind as to the facts was that he knew he was suggesting to Mr Pratt that he was working at the Referrer’s property when he knew that he was not. The Committee is satisfied that ordinary decent people would consider this conduct to be dishonest. Therefore, Particular 6(c) is proved in relation to Particular 5.

69. The Committee finds the facts proved in relation to Particulars 5 and finds proved that the actions of the Registered Person set out in that Particular were misleading, lacked integrity and were dishonest.

70. In conclusion, Particulars 6(a) and (b) are found proved in respect of Particulars 3 and 4 and Particulars 6(a), (b) and (c) are proved in respect of Particular 5.

Unacceptable Professional Conduct – Stage 2

71. The Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct in relation to the findings of Particulars 3, 4, 5 and 6 amounted to Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC).

72. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter on behalf of the ARB, from Mr Hatt on behalf of the Registered Person and accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair. The Committee reminded itself that a finding of UPC is a matter for its own independent judgement having regard to any facts found proved. There is no burden or standard of proof.

73. 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. 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”.

74. The standards required to be followed by the Registered Person are contained in The Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017. 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.

75. 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. The Committee also recognised that any failing must be serious as was confirmed in the case of Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin) and that seriousness needs to be given proper weight, as described by Collins J in Nandi v GMC (2004) EWHC 2317 (Admin) as “conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

76. The Committee considers that the Registered Person’s actions in respect of the findings in respect of Particulars 3, 4, 5 and 6 fell short of the following Standards of the Code:

i. Standard 1.1
ii. Standard 1.2

77. Mr Hatt, on behalf of the Registered Person, drew a comparison with the findings of fact in respect of Particulars 3 and 4 with the failure of the Referrer’s solicitor to attach an invoice to correspondence sent to the Registered Person. Even if it were accepted that the invoice had been inadvertently omitted from the correspondence, the Committee does not find this is a comparable situation. The Registered Person was responding to his regulator in the course of an investigation in which his professional practise was being scrutinised. The Registered Person did not forget to attach a relevant document, he attached a version that was incorrect.

78. The Committee has found that this amounted to a lack of integrity and also finds that it was serious because of the surrounding context. The provision of misleading documents in the course of an investigation is a serious matter and amounts to unacceptable professional conduct.

79. The Committee was also satisfied that the findings in respect of Particular 5 amount to UPC.

80. A finding of dishonesty is always a serious matter and, in this case, was directly connected to the Registered Person’s status as an architect. The Registered Person accepts that he introduced himself to Mr Pratt using his full name and his status as architect. It is the Committee’s finding that the conversation was carefully composed in order to give a false, but plausible, impression that the Registered Person was the architect currently engaged at the property when his involvement had ended many months before. Although this act of dishonesty was isolated to this one telephone conversation, it remains serious.

81. The Committee finds the facts proved in respect of Particulars 3, 4, 5 and 6 amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

Sanction – Stage 3

82. Having found the Registered Person’s actions amounted to UPC the Committee then went on to consider what, if any, sanction to impose in this case. The Committee heard submissions from the Case Presenter, Mr Hatt on behalf of the Registered Person, accepted the legal advice from the Chair and took careful note of the ARB Sanctions Guidance adopted by the PCC from 1 April 2022. The Committee had regard to the public interest which includes the need to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and ARB and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, behaviour and competence.

83. The Committee was mindful that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. Any sanction must balance the rights of the Registered Person against the need to uphold proper standards and protect the public.

84. The Committee first assessed the seriousness of the finding of UPC with reference to the facts found proved during the hearing and by considering the competing aggravating and mitigating factors.

85. In respect of Particulars 3 and 4 the finding of a lack of integrity stemmed from the Registered Person not taking proper care to ensure the documents sent to the ARB were correct. This had the potential to deflect the investigation and gave ARB a false picture.

86. The ARB was able to obtain the correct documents directly from the Council but should have been able to rely upon a registrant to be straight-forward in their communications which took place in the context of an investigation. The Committee noted that there was no impact upon safety. The greatest impact was attracting adverse attention upon himself and inconveniencing the ARB investigation.

87. The Committee finds that in respect of Particulars 3 and 4 the conduct falls at a moderate level of seriousness. Neither at the lower end nor at the higher end.

88. In respect of Particular 5 the Committee noted that a finding of dishonesty will always be serious, but there is still a range of seriousness within such cases. In this case the nature of the dishonesty is not at the highest end as compared to other cases involving dishonesty, but not at the lowest level. The Registered Person relied upon his status as an architect during the conversation when dishonesty was deployed.

89. It is clear that The Registered Person planned to make the call to Mr Pratt to elicit information from him and a copy of the Referrer’s invoice, but it is not clear that he planned to deploy dishonest means to do so from the outset. In the call he put forward a false impression that he was still engaged at the Referrer’s property and did not seek to correct that false impression at any stage.

90. The impact of the dishonesty was relatively minor as the purpose was to get some information that he was almost certainly entitled to in any event through legitimate avenues (e.g. asking the Referrer’s solicitor for a copy of the invoice). Of concern to the Committee is that he would resort to untruthfulness so casually for such inconsequential purposes. Either this is evidence of poor thinking skills or a casual relationship with the truth.

91. The Committee does not place Particular 5 at the highest level of seriousness for cases concerning dishonesty, but it is higher than moderate seriousness.

92. The Committee found the following aggravating factors:

i.) The 2007 PCC findings are of limited impact given the age of the findings and that it was not closely relevant to the facts of the instant case. It was noted that the finding related to a failing to assiduously comply with insurance requirements.
ii.) The Committee noted there was some similarity in Particular 2 of the 2022 PCC findings that related to the Register Person failing to be entirely accurate on the content of an affidavit in court proceedings and this was found to lack integrity. This is not dissimilar to the current Particulars 3 and 4 where the Committee has found that he did not take sufficient care in the provision of documents to the ARB.
iii.) The findings and disciplinary order imposed in July 2022 would have been relatively fresh in his mind in November 2023 when he repeats the behaviour of providing information without proper attention as to its to correctness. The remedial steps referred to in his reflective statement do not appear to have fully addressed the underlying issues of taking proper care.
iv.) The insight that has been demonstrated is insufficient as it fails to address the pattern of a lack of proper care and attention to the accuracy of his communications.

93. The Committee found the following mitigating factors:

i.) The reflective statements demonstrate some insight into his failings.
ii.) The Registered Person engaged with the ARB throughout the investigation of the underlying complaint by the Referrer, as would be expected of a member under investigation.
iii.) There is no evidence of harm to any client or any risk to clients or the wider public.
iv.) The Registered Person has reflected upon the findings and has recognised a need to act with greater thoughtfulness and less impulsivity.
v.) The Committee recognises that the Registered Person would have been under some stress by the parallel issues of a civil claim by the Referrer and an investigation by ARB over the same matter. However, professionals are expected to do the right thing in difficult circumstances and that did not happen in this instance and so carries little weight.
vi.) The Registered Person made appropriate admissions at an early stage to Particulars 3 and 4.

94. The Committee noted the content of the testimonials provided in support of the character of the Registered Person by Mr Sheeley, Mr Ziardis and Mr Azad. Although each appeared to be aware of the instant proceedings, none mention any awareness of the 2022 PCC findings.

95. The Registered Person told the Committee in the 2022 proceedings that he would “double and triple check” the accuracy of his documents after he had submitted an affidavit with a significant error in it. Those reassurances to the 2022 Committee are repeated by the Registered Person to this Committee. The assurance that he has learned a lesson are of significantly diminished credibility given that he made the same promise in 2022 and yet offended in a similar way in 2023.

96. The Committee also noted that the Registered Person needed to make a significant amendment to his witness statement in these proceedings after he realised, on the first day of this hearing, an error that he had not noticed when he signed it a month earlier as being true to the best of his belief. This demonstrates that even now he is not giving important matters his full and proper attention. We also note that in the 2022 PCC proceedings the Registered Person explained that the mistake in his affidavit was due to an error by his then solicitor and that he had not noticed. This is strikingly similar to his explanation in the current proceedings for amending a paragraph of his statement. There appears to be a pattern of a casual approach to preparing important documents that require his careful attention.

97. The Committee went on to consider the sanctions available to it in ascending order. It first considered whether it was appropriate to impose no sanction. Given the serious nature of the findings, this was not considered appropriate.

98. A Reprimand was not considered suitable as the findings are too serious and although there are some factors such as some developing insight, and little risk to the public or clients, they are not significant enough to satisfy the Committee that this would be an appropriate or proportionate sanction. The Registered Person’s previous history is not good and the actions found proved in respect of Particular 5 were deliberate.

99. A Penalty Order was also considered unsuitable as the seriousness of the conduct, including a finding of dishonesty, was such that this would not be an appropriate or proportionate sanction considering the overarching purpose of sanctions are to uphold the confidence of the public and maintain proper standards. We note that the 2022 PCC imposed a Penalty Order in the context of reassurances from the Registered Person that he would take care in future not to repeat his mistakes.

100. The Committee considered whether a Suspension Order was the appropriate sanction. This would be appropriate for serious offences such as this.

101. The dishonesty involved in this case is limited in that it should be distinguished from more serious incidents of fraud against a client, for example. The Committee is satisfied that the dishonesty finding alone would not lead to erasure. There is no pattern of dishonesty or previous findings of dishonesty against the Registered Person and the nature of the dishonesty is not at the highest level.

102. The Committee finds that this is a case not primarily about public protection or safety, but about upholding standards and maintaining confidence in the profession. The evidence of the 2022 PCC proceedings and of these proceedings suggests that there is a continuing issue with the Registered Person in that he persistently fails to apply the proper attention to the accuracy of his communications in important and serious proceedings such that his integrity has been found lacking.

103. The Penalty Order imposed in 2022 did not have the effect that the Registered Person promised that it would by reminding him to “double and triple check” the accuracy of his communications.

104. The Committee was satisfied that a Suspension Order could be appropriate for this matter but noted that the findings of entrenched integrity issues, limited insight and a risk of repetition would suggest that the Committee should look towards the next sanction, Erasure. The Committee noted that the underlying conduct that gave rise to the finding of a lack of integrity was capable of being rectified by the Registered Person, if he chooses to do so.

105. The sanction of Erasure was next considered. There are many factors that would militate towards Erasure being the appropriate sanction. There is evidence of entrenched integrity issues as demonstrated by the factors set out above concerning the 2022 PCC findings and there is significant doubt that the Registered Person will avoid similar behaviour in the future. However, there is little if any risk of harm to the public or concerns regarding public safety.

106. The Committee took into consideration the personal mitigation and the adverse impact that a Suspension Order or Erasure will have on the Registered Person, his colleagues, his clients and associates inside and outside the profession, but the seriousness of the case requires a sanction that reflects the seriousness of the misconduct if the reputation of the profession is to be maintained.

107. Having considered all of the factors set out above, the Committee is narrowly persuaded that Erasure is not necessary or proportionate. The Committee took the view that despite all of the factors that would support Erasure, a Suspension Order will send a message to him, the public and the profession that his conduct needs to be addressed and will allow the Registered Person time to reflect and take effective corrective steps. It is the least sanction that will achieve the purpose of maintaining standards and the reputation of the profession whilst balancing the interests of the Registered Person.

108. The Registered Person will need to adjust his working practice to adapt to the restrictions that this Order will have upon him and his company. This will allow him time to reflect and recognise the importance of acting with integrity in all aspects of his practice before he can return to the Register.

109. The Committee therefore imposes a suspension order of 24 months’ duration. The Registered Person narrowly avoided Erasure and only the maximum duration of a Suspension Order will properly reflect the seriousness of the Committee’s findings.

110. This concludes this determination.