Mr Nicolas Maari

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

NICOLAS MAARI (077932F)

Held on

1-5 November 2025, 30 March-1 April 2026 and 29 April 2026

Hearing held in part at the General Dental Council 37 Wimpole Street London W1G 8DQ

and in part by remote video link

Present

Andrew Lewis (Committee Chair)

Stuart Carr (Committee Architect Member)

Rachel Childs (Committee Lay Member)In this case, the ARB was represented by Ms Rachel Birks, instructed by Ward Hadaway LLP.

Nicolas Maari (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was represented by Mr Tufail Hussain instructed by Godwin Austen Solicitors.

 

Allegation

The allegation is that Nicolas Maari (“the Registered Person”) is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct. The particulars of allegation made against the Registered Person by the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) are as follows:
1. The Registered Person falsified disbursements in that he inflated quotes from third party suppliers (as detailed in all or any of the rows set out in Schedule 1).
2. The Registered Person’s actions as set out in 1 above were;a. Dishonest and/or
b. Lacked integrity
3. The Registered Person failed to inform the ARB of his dismissal for gross misconduct, in contravention of Standard 9.2 of the Architects Code.

Preliminary matters

1. At the outset of the hearing Ms Birks applied to amend the figures in paragraph I of the Schedule.2. Mr Hussain did not oppose the application.
3. The Committee was satisfied that the amendment was necessary to reflect the evidence and could be made without injustice to the Registered Person because he was represented by counsel who did not object.
4. Accordingly, the Committee allowed the amendment which is set out in Appendix 1 to this decision.

Background

5. The Registered Person is an architect who was first registered with the ARB in 2011. Between 2016 and 2022 (when he was suspended from work), the Registered Person was head of architecture at J & A Pellings Limited (Pellings), which is a multi-disciplinary consultancy which has been part of the RSK group of companies since December 2018.
6. The Allegation arises from the Registered Person’s work as Head of Architecture in relation to four substantial building projects between May 2019 and September 2021. Particular 1 of the Allegation relates to nine transactions that were part of a process known as “mini tendering”.
7. This process arose when a client required the services of a third-party consultant or contractor, whose fees had not been included in the original tender for a building project. When that occurred, the project manager of each project (in this case either Andrew Tang or Andrew Fisher), or on at least one occasion, the Registered Person himself, with the assistance of the administrative staff, would obtain a number of quotations from which they would make a recommendation to the client.
8. It was an established procedure that the client would be notified in writing of the fee proposed by each of three contractors and Pellings would recommend one of the contractors (usually the lowest quotation) and openly add a management fee that was usually in the region of 15%.
9. In each case with which the Committee is concerned, it is alleged that a list of appropriate quotations was sent to the Registered Person for his approval and authorisation to invoice the client. It is alleged that in each case he altered the “tender letter” intended for the client to show the lowest and recommended quotation as significantly higher than it was. The client was billed for the inflated fee, Pellings paid the consultant the fee they had asked for and Pellings kept the difference.
10. An investigation was carried out in Pellings in October and November 2021, following an anonymous complaint, and the Registered Person was dismissed in January 2022. Following an internal appeal the Registered Person applied to an employment tribunal, where he was unsuccessful, and he was similarly unsuccessful on appeal.
11. Following the completion of the tribunal process, the managing director of Pellings referred the Registered Person to the ARB on 9 December 2024.

Admissions
12. The Particulars of Allegation were read to the Registered Person at the start of the hearing in accordance with rule 25 (c) of the Investigations and Professional Conduct Committee Rules (the Rules).
13. The Registered Person admitted Particular 3 of the Allegation and that was recorded as admitted and found proved in accordance with Rule 25(d).

Evidence
14. The Committee had before it:
a. The “Report to the PCC”, which contained a written statement of the ARB’s case;
b. A “Final Hearing Bundle” of 613 pages from the ARB which included the following:
i. A witness statement from the managing director of Pellings, Mark Brown;
ii. The emails and other documents relating to the transactions referred to above;
iii. A letter from solicitors acting for the Registered Person
iv. Six character references submitted on behalf of the Registered Person.
c. A Statement from the Registered Person dated 28 November 2025;
d. A bundle of documents of 427 pages submitted by the Registered Person;
e. A document explaining the Registered Person’s documents;
f. A statement from the Registered Person’s wife, referred to in these proceedings as Mrs Maari;
g. A copy of the Articles of Association of RSK.
15. The Committee also heard evidence from:
a. Mr Mark Brown
b. The Registered Person
c. Mrs Anastassia Maari.

Submissions and advice
16. The Committee received submissions on facts from Ms Birks in which she drew the Committee’s attention to the relevant law and evidence. Ms Birks took the Committee through each of the transactions in the schedule and reminded the Committee of the documents and other evidence relating to each transaction. The Committee refers to those submissions and documents, where appropriate, when dealing with the individual transactions.
17. The Committee also received submissions from Mr Hussain, on behalf of the Registered Person. He also reminded the Committee of the relevant law and in particular the importance of not requiring the Registered Person to explain all the transactions because that would effectively reverse the burden of proof.
18. Mr. Hussain also drew the Committee’s attention to a document known throughout the proceedings as the “tracker document” in which various transactions were recorded. He submitted that the Committee should not rely upon this document because many people contributed to it and it was not clear who had made which entries.
19. He reminded the Committee of the evidence regarding the use of the Registered Person’s electronic signature by his colleagues and submitted that the Committee should not assume that the electronic signature was evidence that the Registered Person had read and approved a document.
20. He submitted that there was no evidence of any motive for the Registered Person to behave in the way alleged.
21. He submitted that the Committee could only find a particular of the allegation proved by reason of one of the transactions in the schedule if the ARB could establish the following:
a. that there was a quotation for relevant work;
b. that the Registered Person had put forward a changed quotation for that work;
c. that the changed figure was intended to be a false representation;
d. That the change was not the result of error or scope changes or commercial structuring.
22. Mr Hussain submitted that, in all the circumstances, the ARB had failed to discharge the burden of proving that any changes in the quotations were the result of deliberate falsification rather than errors arising from template misuse or systematic process failure.
23. He submitted that, in those circumstances, the ARB had not established a basis for a finding of dishonesty or lack of integrity.
24. The Committee also received legal advice from the Chair, which it followed in its approach to the Allegation. The Committee summarises that advice as follows.
25. The Chair advised the Committee that the burden of proof lies on the ARB and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The Registered Person does not have to prove or disprove anything.
26. The Committee must not speculate but can draw inferences from facts it has found proved. When drawing an inference, it should set out the fact it has found proved, the inferences it has drawn and explain why it has drawn them.
27. The Committee does not have to resolve every disputed fact in this case only those that are necessary to enable it to reach a decision on the Particulars of the Allegation.
28. When assessing the evidence of witnesses, the Committee should remember that memory is fallible and not place undue reliance upon demeanour. It should compare the evidence of witnesses with contemporaneous documents and start from the position that such documents are likely to be the most reliable source of evidence.
29. The Committee should consider each paragraph of Particular 1 separately. It does not follow that if it finds one paragraph of the Allegation proved, it must find others proved.
30. Where the Committee finds one allegation proved to the required standard, by reason of the evidence relating directly to it, the Committee may use that finding as evidence in respect of another paragraph if it is satisfied that it is sufficiently connected and similar to the subsequent paragraph to satisfy it that the Registered Person has a propensity to act as alleged.
31. The Committee should not base its findings on the conclusions of the investigation held at Pellings. The Committee must look for itself at all the documentation and any witness evidence that assists it and decide for itself what occurred during the period covered by the Allegation.
32. When assessing the Registered Person’s evidence, the Committee should remember that he is a man of good character, against whom there have been no previous findings of dishonesty and of whom a number of people speak highly.
33. The Committee should remind itself of the character references before the Committee. The Committee would see that the writers of those references do not demonstrate any knowledge of the Allegation faced by the Registered Person, but it should note that they speak of the Registered Person being an honest man. The Committee should weigh that in his favour when assessing his evidence and the likelihood that he would act dishonestly.

Dishonesty
34. With regard to dishonesty, the Committee should bear in mind the following.
35. Dishonesty is a question of fact like any other. The burden of proving it rests upon the ARB and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. There is no enhanced standard of proof although the Committee will of course approach such a serious allegation with the care that it merits and, if it makes a finding of dishonesty, it will identify the evidence upon which it relies and explain why it leads the Committee to that conclusion.
36. There is seldom direct evidence of dishonesty. It is something upon which the Committee is invited to draw an inference from the facts it has found. Everything in the advice about identifying the facts found and explaining why the Committee draws an inference applies in particular on this question.
37. In order to establish dishonesty, the ARB does not have to prove a motive, although it is likely to assist the Committee to ask if there is a motive in this case.
38. The test the Tribunal must apply for has been set out by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd 2017 UKSC 67
Para (74) “When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain-(subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts
The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held.
When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.”

Integrity
39. Turning to integrity, the Committee received and accepted the following advice derived from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wingate and Evans -v- SRA and SRA -v- Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366: “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 underlying 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.”

The Committee’s approach to the witnesses
40. The Committee deals with the details of their evidence, where appropriate, under the transactions set out in the schedule and labelled A-I. Nevertheless, the Committee wished to set out at this stage the view it formed of each of the witnesses by comparing their evidence to the contemporaneous documents put before the Committee.
41. Mr. Brown (the managing director of Pellings) conducted the investigation into the Registered Person’s work in October and November 2021. Mr. Brown put before the Committee the contemporaneous documents which had been obtained during his investigation.
42. The Committee found that his account was consistent with those documents and observed that he was ready to acknowledge that there were matters outside his knowledge and gaps in the documentation.
43. With regard to the general matters he was asked about, the Committee accepted his evidence that there was not a list of logins which enabled the senior employees of Pellings to log into the Pellings computer and send emails from someone else’s account. He described this as strictly against Pellings IT policy, for which it paid a great deal of money. The Committee accepted his evidence that where someone sent an e-mail on someone else’s behalf, they would mark this on the e-mail. The Committee observed that this was consistent with the documentation before it where it saw emails from Jane Arnold (a member of the Pellings administrative team and the Registered Person’s PA) where she had sent an e-mail from her own account and typed it as “sent on behalf” of the Registered Person. The Committee observed other examples of the same practice.
44. The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person was in a uniquely stressful situation and made allowances for that. Nevertheless, the Committee did not accept his oral evidence that there was a general practice of Pellings staff sending emails from other peoples’ accounts without acknowledging it. The Committee observed that the Registered Person raised this for the first time in his oral evidence, which led the Committee to doubt this evidence. It also preferred the Referrer’s evidence on this point for the reasons set out above, and in particular that it was consistent with the emails it saw in which the senders acknowledged when they were writing on someone else’s behalf.
45. The Committee has highlighted this issue, because it relates to all the paragraphs of Schedule 1. The Committee returns to it when considering the paragraphs, below.
46. The Registered Person also told the Committee that others, including the administrative staff, could put his electronic signature on letters. He drew the Committee’s attention to an example of this happening during the time he was suspended from work. The Committee observed also that on a number of occasions draft letters were sent to him for his approval with his electronic signature already in place.
47. The Committee observed that this evidence was consistent with the written documents before it and concluded that it could not find that a letter had been read and approved by him only by reason of his electronic signature being on it.
48. Mrs Maari gave evidence that in 2021, she occupied a relatively junior position within the architecture team at Pellings and had not seen the Registered Person behave in a dishonest way and told that one of the project managers had access to her computer and it was not difficult to access. She was not able to shed any further light on the widespread practice of sending emails as if they were from another member of staff.

The Committee’s approach to the Allegation
49. Having regard to the evidence of the Pellings investigation, the Committee decided that not only should it put out of its mind the conclusions of the investigation it should disregard the notes of staff whose evidence is recorded in bullet point form, in documents that are unsigned and undated.
50. The Committee decided that the fair way to approach each of the transactions in schedule 1, is to rely upon the documents produced at the time as being the most likely source of reliable evidence.
51. The Committee observed that both counsel had drawn the Committee’s attention to a document referred to as the “Tracker Document”. The Committee observed that this was a spread sheet containing evidence of some of the transactions listed in Schedule 1. The Committee decided that it should place no weight upon that document when considering the case against the Registered Person, because it accepted that the document was accessed at different times by many people involved in the projects and it was not possible to say who had made the various entries or when they were made.
52. The Committee also reminded itself about its finding with regard to the use of Registered Person’s electronic signature on documents that he had not read.

Particular 1
53. Looking at the 9 transactions in schedule 1, the Committee concluded that, unless otherwise set out below, there was no dispute but that each transaction was part of the mini tendering process explained above.
54. In each case, there was evidence that three quotations had been obtained from independent contractors and there was evidence that a higher or inflated figure had been passed to the client in a document called a “tender letter” which purported to contain the quotation provided by the contractor. The questions that the Committee had to answer was whether the ARB had proved that the Registered Person played a role in that and, if so, whether the inflation was the result of “falsification” or was at least equally likely to be the result of error or a legitimate correction in the figures.

A Quotation for CCTV Drainage – proved

55. The Committee saw the following documents, produced by The Referrer:
a. The original quotation from the contractor in the sum of £2,750
b. An email of 6 July 2021 from Jane Arnold to the Registered Person cc Andrew Tang, attaching a draft tender letter
c. A draft tender letter from the Registered Person to the client showing the quotation from the contractor in the sum of £2750 plus management fee, under the explanatory sentence: “Please see below prices from each of the survey companies.” (The Registered Person’s electronic signature was already on that draft letter.)
d. An email dated 7 July 2021 from the Registered Person to Jane Arnold attaching an amended tender letter and stating, “these ones are good to go, I have reviewed and amended accordingly…”
e. An amended draft tender letter, dated 7 July 2021, on which the only alteration is that the quotation for CCTV has increased to £5,500 plus £825 management fee
f. An email dated 8 July 2021, from Jane Arnold, copied to the Registered Person and Andrew Tang, sending the amended tender report to the client.
g. A tender letter to the client, now dated 8 July 2021, with the Registered Person’s name and electronic signature on it, including the increased quotation.
h. An invoice from the contractor, dated 18 August 2021, which confirmed the original fee of £2750.
56. The Committee reminded itself that it had found it could not safely conclude that a letter had been read and sent by the Registered Person only because it had his electronic signature on it. Nevertheless, the Committee saw a pattern of correspondence between Jane Arnold and the Registered Person which showed on its face that the original quotation had been sent to him and then returned to Jane Arnold, doubled, attached to an email saying “I have reviewed and amended accordingly.”
57. The Committee observed that the amended tender letter did not purport to add additional fees for Pellings but showed that the original quotation from the contractor was £5500 in circumstances where the original quotation shows that this was not true.
58. The Committee reminded itself that the Registered Person had set out his defence in a written statement dated 28 November 2025. He emphasised that his responsibilities were, “rooted in the staff management in the design team. I would hand this over to the senior associates/partners including Andrew Fisher, Andrew Tang and Adil Musa and I would liaise with them directly. They would be managing the project on a day-to-day basis including appointment of the consultants”
59. He added that he had “never deliberately falsified, inflated or manipulated any fee, disbursement or subcontractor quotation”.
60. The Committee also reminded itself of the Registered Person’s oral evidence that he did not recall writing this email and there were others including Jane Arnold and Andrew Tang who could have sent emails that were apparently from him and there was a wide scale practice of staff doing that at Pellings.
61. The Committee reminded itself that it had rejected that evidence for the reasons set out above. The Committee reminded itself that that there was no evidence that this was possible, apart from the Registered Person’s general assertion that it was. The Committee could find no reason why others would want to do this and observed that in respect of this paragraph of Schedule 1, it would have required the Committee to find an elaborate conspiracy involving Jane Arnold actually writing emails to herself.
62. The Committee concluded that the most likely explanation was that the emails were sent and received as indicated on the documents and that it was the Registered Person who had increased the quotation.
63. The Committee then considered whether there might be a legitimate explanation for this relating to the scope of works or some other good reason. The Committee observed that the documents recorded no such reason and concluded that the likely reason for that was that there was no reason which could be recorded.
64. The Committee was satisfied that it had heard no evidence of errors or systemic failures that could account for the increase in the quotation.
65. For those reasons the Committee concluded that the documents demonstrated that the Registered Person had inflated the original quotation and that the explanation was that the figure he sent the client was a falsified figure.

B Quotation for Air Quality Assessment – proved

66. The Committee saw the following documents, produced by The Referer:
a. An email dated 28 June 2021 from Jane Arnold, copied to Andrew Tang and the Registered Person, requesting a quotation for air quality assessment.
b. An e-mail dated 5 July 2021 from Jane Arnold to Andrew Tang and the Registered Person attaching a draft tender letter which she says contains the estimates received from the contractors including the quotation of £1,160 obtained from “Phlorum”
c. An email dated 7 July 2021 from the Registered Person to Jane Arnold saying, “These ones are good to go, I have reviewed and amended accordingly.”
d. A copy of the same “tender letter” dated 7 July 2021sent to the client with the Registered Person’s name and electronic signature on it, including the increased quotation.
67. The Committee approached this transaction with additional caution because it observed that it did not have the original quotation from the contractor but only sight of a draft letter from Jane Arnold reporting that quotation.
68. The Committee examined the correspondence in this case and observed that on a number of occasions Jane Arnold had sent the tender letter to the Registered Person or others, attaching the original quotation and summarising the quotations in a draft “tender letter”. The Committee observed that on each occasion she had transcribed the correct figure and decided that it was more likely than not that she had done so on this occasion.
69. The Committee applied the same reasoning to the documents in this paragraph as in paragraph A. For the same reasons, it concluded that the Registered Person had amended the quotation that was to go to the client in a way that was misleading and did so without any legitimate reason because none is recorded in the paperwork.
70. For those reasons the Committee concluded that the documents demonstrated that the Registered Person had inflated the original quotation and that the explanation was that that the figure he sent the client was a falsified figure.

C Quotation for Flood Risk Assessment – proved

71. The Committee saw the following documents, produced by The Referrer:
a. The original quotation dated 23 July 2021, from the contractor undertaking to complete a report for £795 plus VAT.
b. An email dated 23 July 2021 from Jane Arnold to the Registered Person attaching a draft tender letter with three quotations.
c. A copy of the draft tender letter, dated 23 July 2021, showing the quotation at £795 plus management fee and VAT.
d. An email dated 23 July 2021, an hour later that afternoon, from the Registered Person to Jane Arnold saying “here is the draft letter for Antoinette, you might want to check the figures in the quote file”
e. A copy of the tender letter dated 23 July 2021 showing the quotation from the contractor increased from £795 to £1590 (plus management fee and VAT). This tender letter is in almost the same form as the two referred to above and shows the figure as the “quotation” from the contractor, in circumstances where the original quotation reveals that this is not the case.
72. For the same reasons as before, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person had inflated the quotation without a legitimate reason and in a way that was misleading.
73. For those reasons the Committee concluded that the documents demonstrated that the Registered Person had inflated the original quotation and that the explanation was that that the figure he sent the client was a falsified figure.

D Flood Risk Assessment – not proved

74. The Committee saw the following documents, produced by The Referrer:
a. A copy of the original quotation by the contractor dated 31 January 2020, in the sum of £1250.
b. A tender letter dated 11 February 2020, sent to the client under the electronic signature of the Registered Person. The quotation from the contractor had been increased to £1890 plus a 15% management fee plus VAT.
c. An email dated 26 March 2020 from the Registered Person to his colleagues inviting them to record the payment to the consultants as £618.50 for Pellings and £1250 for the subcontractor.
75. The Committee was concerned about the third document because it appeared to show that the Registered Person knew of the increase in the contractor’s quotation and was seeking to misrepresent it in the Pellings records.
76. Nevertheless, the Committee recognised that there was no evidence that the quotation had been sent to the Registered Person to review, or that he had sent an amended document to Jane Arnold in the way that he had done in the transactions set out above. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that it could not be satisfied that the Registered Person was himself responsible for inflating the estimate and falsifying the figure that was sent to the client.

E Heritage Assessment – not proved

77. The Committee saw the following documents, produced by The Referrer:
a. A quotation dated 14 May 2019 from the contractor in the sum of £2,395 plus VAT.
b. A copy of a tender letter dated 17 May 2019 under the electronic signature of the Registered Person, sending an amended quotation to the client in the sum of £5390 plus management fees and VAT.
78. The Committee observed that in this case the quotation had more than doubled. Nevertheless, the Committee again recognised that there was no evidence that the quotation had been sent to the Registered Person for him to review or that he had sent an amended document to Jane Arnold in the way he had done in the transactions set out above. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that it could not be satisfied that the Registered Person was himself responsible for inflating the estimate and falsifying the figure that was sent to the client.

F A project measured survey – proved

79. The Committee saw the following documents, produced by The Referrer.
a. A quotation dated 15 August 2019 from the contractor in the sum of £4995 plus VAT.
b. An e-mail dated 23 August 2019 from Mrs Maari to Jane Arnold, attaching a draft tender letter to the client showing the quotation in the same sum of £4995 plus VAT and management fees.
c. An e-mail dated 27 August 2019 from Mrs Maari to another colleague and copied to the Registered Person. This e-mail is attached to an amended tender letter showing the contractors quotation as £8.990 plus VAT and management fees.
d. Two emails dated 28th August 2019 from Mrs Maari to Jane Arnold attaching the amended tender letter and asking her to print it, and another similar email to another colleague dated 29 August 2019.
e. An e-mail dated 29 August 2019 from Mrs Maari to the client and copied to the Registered Person, attaching the amended tender letter.
f. An e-mail from the Registered Person to a number of his colleagues including Jane Arnold asking them to record the payment to the contractor as Pellings £3024 and Laser (the contractor) £4995.
80. The Committee observed that this last e-mail requested the Registered Person’s colleagues to record the total payment requested from the client by the inflated estimate but in a way that made it look as if the client had been charged the correct figure for the contractor’s fees and an additional administrative fee.
81. The Committee found that this email demonstrated that the Registered Person was aware of exactly what the client had been charged and was trying to misrepresent this in Pellings records within a few days of the inflated figure being sent to the client.
82. The Committee acknowledged that there was no direct evidence of the Registered Person amending the figures as there have been under paragraphs A, B and C.
83. Nevertheless, the Committee had regard to his role in concealing or misrepresenting this payment, the fact that he was doing so within days of the inflated estimate being sent to the client, his knowledge of the exact sums involved and also the findings the Committee made at paragraphs A, B and C that the Registered Person was engaged in inflating the quotations to the point where the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person had a propensity to act in this way.
84. The Committee was satisfied that there was no evidence to explain how this could have happened by accident or as a result of legitimate commercial considerations.
85. For those reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person had played his part on this occasion in inflating the contractor’s fees and falsifying the quotations sent to the clients.

G structural survey -proved

86. The Committee saw the following documents, produced by The Referrer.
a. An email dated 10 July 2019, from the client to the Registered Person, thanking him for his request for a quotation and providing a quotation in the sum of £750 plus VAT.
b. An e-mail dated 4 September 2019 from Mrs Maari to Jane Arnold and copied to the Registered Person sending a link to the quotations and saying: “Could you please draft a Tender letter with three quotes to be sent to the Client. Please liaise with Nicolas regarding the exact costs against each consultant.”
c. An email dated 4 September 2019 at 15.20, from Jane Arnold to the Registered Person, sending a link to the draft tender letter.
d. An email from the Registered Person dated 4 September 2019 and sent at 15.28 to Jane Arnold. This email attached a revised tender letter showing the contractors fees at £1750 plus VAT and management fees (an increase of £1000.)
e. An email from the Registered Person dated 4 September 2019 at 15.37 sending the tender letter to the client showing the quotation as £1750 plus VAT and management fees under the heading “please see below prices from each of the survey companies”.
f. Further correspondence with the contractor showing that the fee paid to the contractor was the sum for which it quoted, namely £750 plus VAT.
87. The Committee also had regard to a printout from Pellings Computer system which showed that the document sent by the Registered Person by the email dated 4 September 2019 at 15.28 had been amended by someone logged into the system as him at 15.28, the same time as he sent an email to Jane Arnold.
88. The Committee reminded itself that the Registered Person had told it that he was not engaged in the day-to-day arranging of contractors’ fees but left this to the project managers. The Committee observed that this correspondence, in which the Registered Person is dealing directly with a contractor, demonstrates that this was not always the case.
89. Taking all this evidence together and for the same reasons as above, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person inflated quotations from the contractors and falsified the disbursements he notified the client on this occasion by adding £1000.

H Topo and measured survey tender report – Not proved

90. The Committee saw the following documents, produced by The Referrer.
a. A tender letter dated 18 November 2019 and sent to the client under the electronic signature of the Registered Person. This document shows the relevant quotation to be £87,950 plus VAT and management fees.
b. A quotation from the contractor dated 2 May 2020, showing the fee as £80,000.
91. Having regard to the timing of these documents and the absence of any documentary evidence that the Registered Person ever reviewed these figures, the Committee concluded that there is effectively no evidence that the Registered Person played any part in inflating quotations or falsifying disbursements in this case.

I Project TOPO – Not proved
92. The Committee observed that this quotation was the subject of some concern at the time raised by a colleague of the Registered Person. However, the Committee has been shown no contemporaneous documentation to support the allegation that the Registered Person inflated quotations or falsified disbursements. In those circumstances the Committee found that this part of the allegation was not proved.

Conclusion with regard to Particular 1

93. Accordingly, the Committee found Particular 1 of the Allegation to be proved by reason of the matters in paragraphs A, B, C, F, and G of schedule 1.

Particular 2

94. The Committee then considered whether the Registered Person’s actions found proved at Particular 1 were dishonest.
95. The Committee reminded itself that the Registered Person is a man of good character. It also had regard to Mr Hussain’s submissions that he had no motive to act dishonestly.
96. The Committee was not able to accept this last submission. The Committee found that no precise motive has been established and found it is not sufficient to simply say that the Registered Person is ambitious as Ms Birks submitted. Nevertheless, the Committee found that each of the transactions gave rise to a financial gain to Pellings, of which the Registered Person was a director and head of architecture. The Committee observed that on at least two occasions he took considerable pains to ensure that the inflated quotations were recorded in a way that added to the income of Pellings and the project for which he was responsible.
97. The Committee reminded itself that it has found that the Registered Person inflated quotations from contractors and sent the inflated figures, that he had himself inflated, to his clients, who were entitled to trust him as a professional person.
98. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person knew that the quotations he sent to the clients were wrong and caused them to spend more money than they needed to. The Committee observed that this also brought a financial gain to Pellings both directly and by increasing the value of the 15% administration fee.
99. The Committee then asked itself whether ordinary decent people would find that conduct dishonest and had no doubt that they would.
100. The Committee was also satisfied that it follows from its finding that the Registered Person acted dishonestly, that he acted without integrity and there is no need to make a separate finding in respect of that.

Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC)

101. Having found Particular 1 of the Allegation proved in relation to paragraphs A, B, C, F and G of Schedule 1 the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to UPC.

Submissions and advice

102. The Committee invited submissions from Ms Birks and Mr Hussain.
103. Ms Birks drew the Committee’s attention to section 14(1)(a) of the Architects Act 1997.
104. Ms Birks submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct breached Standards 1.1, 1.2, 9.1 and 9.2 of the Architects Code 2017 and drew the Committee’s attention to the High Court decision in Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). (which the Committee sets out below)
105. She submitted that the Committee should find that the matters proved amounted to UPC because of their seriousness.
106. She submitted that the Committee had found that the Registered Person’s dishonesty was serious over a prolonged period of time and amounted to a pattern of behaviour. She reminded the Committee that the Registered Person occupied a senior position and submitted he had misled both colleagues and clients in a way that brought the profession into disrepute.
107. She submitted that the Registered Person’s behaviour demonstrated a disregard for his professional obligations and this was compounded by his failure to notify the ARB of his dismissal for gross misconduct.
108. Mr Hussain indicated that he had no submissions at this stage.
109. The Committee accepted the advice of the chair, heard in private session, that Ms Birk had stated the legal position correctly and followed that advice in its approach set out below.

The Committee’s approach

110. It 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.
111. 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.
112. The Committee bore in mind the ARB guidance that UPC is defined as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a Registered Person. In reaching its findings on UPC, 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 give rise to disciplinary proceedings or a finding of UPC.
113. The general test is whether he or she has fallen seriously short of the standard of conduct expected of a member of the profession in the circumstances.
114. The conduct found proved must be serious in order for unacceptable professional conduct to be found. The question of what is serious or not in the context is not a technical legal exercise but a question for the skilled judgment of the Professional Conduct Committee.
115. In deciding whether the facts found proved amount to UPC the Committee also had regard to Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). It bore in mind in reaching its decision 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” was required. (The Committee observed that this is old fashioned language meaning that they would regard it as disgraceful).
116. The Committee also took into account the observation made by Kerr J in Shaw v The General Osteopathic Council [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin) that, although the conduct in question must be sufficiently serious, it does not need to be of such gravity that imposing an admonishment would be too lenient.
117. The Committee also had regard to the case of Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin), which provided that the Committee should look at the picture as a whole when deciding SPI, and by implication, UPC.
118. The Committee had regard to the following provisions of the code
Standard 1.1 which provides:
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 1.2 which provides:
1.2 You should not make any statement which is contrary to your professional opinion or which you know to be misleading, unfair to others or discreditable to the profession.
Standard 9.1 which provides:
9.1 You should ensure that your professional finances are managed responsibly.
Standard 9.2 which provides:
9.2 You are expected to conduct yourself in a way which does not bring either yourself or the profession into disrepute. If you find yourself in a position where you know that you have fallen short of these standards, or that your conduct could reflect badly on the profession, you are expected to report the matter to ARB.

The Committee’s decision

119. The Committee found that each of the matters found proved represented a breach of the above provisions of the code of conduct.
120. The Committee reminded itself that not all breaches of the code will amount to UPC. Nevertheless, the Committee observed that the matters found proved at Particulars 1 and 2 amounted to a pattern of serious dishonesty over a significant period for financial gain, in breach of a senior position of trust. The Committee was satisfied that this was conduct likely to bring the professional into disrepute and lower the public’s confidence in architects.
121. The Committee found that the matter admitted at Particular 3 was also a serious breach of the Registered Person’s duty to engage with his regulator in the context of the matters alleged at the time and subsequently found proved.
122. For those reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the matters proved amounted to UPC.

Decision on sanction
123. Having found the Registered Person guilty of UPC, the Committee considered which, if any, sanction to impose.

Submissions and advice

124. The Committee heard submissions from Ms Birks and Mr Hussain.
125. Ms Birks told the Committee that the ARB did not seek to persuade the Committee to impose any particular sanction. She helpfully drew the Committee’s attention to the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance (SG) and the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.
126. Ms Birks submitted that the Committee must determine the seriousness of the matters found proved (and admitted) and reminded the Committee of its finding at paragraph 120 of its decision on UPC that the Registered Person’ conduct “amounted to a pattern of serious dishonesty over a significant period for financial gain, in breach of a senior position of trust”.
127. Ms Birks drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8 of the SG and reminded the Committee that:
a. paragraph 8.1 provides that honesty and integrity “is a fundamental tenet of the Code and underpins the trust the public places in the profession. Consequently, a finding of dishonesty is particularly serious and likely to warrant more serious action.”
b. Nevertheless, the Committee should also have regard to paragraph 8.2, which provides that: “There is a broad spectrum of dishonesty which the PCC must consider when determining the appropriate and proportionate sanction. Dishonest conduct can take many forms: ‘some criminal, some not; some destroying trust instantly, others merely undermining it to a greater or lesser extent”
128. Ms. Birks drew the Committee’s attention to the correct approach to sanctions, which the Committee sets out in its approach below. She took the Committee through each of the available sanctions in turn and invited the Committee to consider whether the Registrant’s conduct was not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
129. Mr Hussain did not call any further evidence, but informed the Committee that the Registered Person (who was not present at this stage) “accepts the Committee’s findings… and regrets he fell short.”
130. He reminded the Committee that the Registered Person was not a director of the company for which he worked and submitted that he had made no financial gain for himself. He submitted that the amounts involved were not very great and the Registered Person’s conduct fell at the lower end of financial misconduct. He submitted that the conduct was limited in scope and out of character. He submitted that there was no evidence of concealment.
131. He submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct was not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration but was capable of remedy by having better systems. He submitted that erasure was reserved for the most serious cases, and the factors necessary to justify erasure were not present in this case.
132. The Committee received the advice of the Chair, which it accepted and followed in its approach set out below.

The Committee’s approach

133. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to all the evidence provided to it and took into account the submissions made by Ms Birks and Mr Hussain. The Committee had regard to and applied the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance (2022) (SG) published by the ARB. It also had regard to the Committee’s decision on facts and its findings in relation to UPC.
134. 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.
135. The Committee reminded itself that one result of that may be that matters of personal mitigation will be of less importance than they would be if the object were punishment. The Committee reminded itself of the principle laid down by the case of Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 ‘The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is part of the price.’
136. The Committee reminded itself that it must have regard to the principle of proportionality, that is to say that it must strike a proper balance between public protection and the rights of the Registered Person. Nevertheless, if a sanction is necessary for the protection of the public including in the wider public interest, it must be imposed. A sanction should be no more severe or restrictive than is necessary to achieve its aim.
137. The Committee reminded itself that it should identify any aggravating and mitigating factors and balance those factors to arrive at a view of the seriousness of the unacceptable professional conduct it had found.
138. The Committee acknowledged that it should consider each sanction in turn starting with the least restrictive and reminded itself that the sanctions available are as follows, bearing in mind that a committee can, in appropriate circumstances, impose no sanction:
a. Reprimand,
b. Penalty order,
c. Suspension,
d. Erasure.

The Committee’s decision

139. The Committee identified the following aggravating factors:
a. The Registered Person’s conduct amounted to a repeated pattern of deliberate, premeditated dishonesty over a significant period of time.
b. The conduct caused financial loss to clients, short term gain and ultimately loss to the Registered Person’s employer.
c. The Registered Person was in a position of trust in relation to both his employer and the clients.
d. The Committee has found that the Registered Person was involved in steps to conceal the deception he carried out.
e. Throughout the investigation and this hearing, the Registered Person blamed others.
f. The Registered Person has not demonstrated any insight, remorse, or remedial steps.
140. The Committee identified the following mitigating factors:
a. The Registered Person is a person of good character, against whom there have been no previous adverse findings and of whom a number of people have written to speak well.
b. The Registered Person made a partial admission in that he admitted his failure to report his dismissal from his employment.
141. The Committee balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and concluded that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors to a significant extent. The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person’s conduct was not at the very highest level of seriousness because the amounts in respect of which he had been found dishonest, were not the greatest, nor were the clients the most vulnerable.
142. Nevertheless, the Committee found that the sheer repetition of systematic dishonesty over a period of some two years, in the context of the aggravating factors set out above, puts this case very much towards the top end of seriousness.
143. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s dishonest conduct was particularly serious because it goes to the heart of the relationship between an architect, their employer and their clients. The Committee’s view is that in that relationship, the architect has to be the person whom everyone can trust to act with honesty and integrity. The Committee was satisfied that an architect who betrays that trust on the scale found in this case undermines and risks destroying the public’s trust in the profession as a whole.
144. The Committee also had regard to paragraph 8.3 of SG which sets out how committees should approach dishonesty and sets out examples of conduct “More likely to result in erasure”.
145. The Committee reminded itself that it had already found that the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to premeditated systematic deception over a relatively long period. The Committee also reminded itself that although there was no evidence of direct financial gain to the Registered Person, it had found that there was short term financial gain to his employer, where he occupied a senior position. The Committee was also satisfied that, although there was not a risk to client or public safety, there was a financial risk to clients and a significant risk of undermining public confidence in the profession of architects.
146. Against this background, the Committee considered each of the sanctions in turn.
147. The Committee considered first whether it should impose no sanction. The Committee had regard to paragraph 6.1 of SG and concluded that this case was far too serious to impose no sanction and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify taking that course.
148. The Committee then considered imposing a reprimand. The Committee had regard to the matters set out in paragraph 6.2 of SG. The Committee concluded that this was not a matter that fell at the lower end of the scale of seriousness and reminded itself that the UPC found in this case was far from being an isolated incident.
149. The Committee then considered a penalty order, that is to say a financial penalty of up to £2500. The Committee concluded that, while this sanction was open to the Committee, the UPC found in this case was too serious and would be insufficient to uphold public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
150. The Committee then considered whether to impose a suspension order. The Committee reminded itself of paragraph 6.4.1 of SG,
“A suspension order may be imposed by the PCC for serious offences, but where the circumstances are not so serious as to warrant erasure from the Register.”…” Any individual suspended from the Register cannot use the title ‘Architect’ in business or practice during that time (nor any reference to membership or fellowship of the Royal Institute of British Architects).”
151. The Committee had particular regard to the factors set out at 6.4.3 and concluded the following.

a. The Committee was satisfied that the conduct is so serious that a reprimand or penalty order would be insufficient to protect the public or uphold public confidence in the profession for the reasons set out above.
b. The Committee was satisfied that almost every aspect of this case demonstrated evidence of entrenched integrity issues. These included, but were not limited to, the persistence of the conduct, the extent to which it was premeditated and systematic, the Registered Person’s attempts to blame others.
c. The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person is entitled to defend a case without it being held against him. Nevertheless, the practical effect in this case is that there is no evidence before it of insight or remorse for what he has done.
d. Similarly, there is no material before it from which the Committee can be reassured that the behaviour is unlikely to be repeated.
e. The Committee accepted that the conduct in this case is capable of being rectified, although it would be hard to demonstrate rectification in light of the period over which the misconduct occurred. However, the Committee was satisfied that there is no material before it which demonstrates that the Registered Person is himself capable of rectifying the conduct the Committee has found proved.
f. The Committee acknowledges that there is no evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since the Registered Person’s conduct came to light. However, the Committee was not satisfied that there was any material before it from which it could conclude that the Registered Person had worked in a similar position of trust since the matters found proved in this case came to light.

152. The Committee then considered erasure and turned to paragraph 6.5 of SG which provides that:
6.5.1 An erasure order may be imposed by the PCC for those offences that are so serious that only removal from the Register will protect the public and/or uphold public confidence in the profession.
153. It also had regard to paragraph 6.5.2. Which provides that erasure may be considered appropriate where one or more of the following factors are present.There is a serious risk of harm to the public;

• The Registered Person has committed a serious criminal offence;
• There is evidence of a deliberate or reckless disregard for public safety and/or the standards expected of an architect;
• The architect’s conduct or failing is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect;
• The PCC lacks confidence that a repeat offence will not occur;
• There is evidence of dishonesty or a serious lack of integrity;
• There is evidence the architect put their own interests before their client;
• The architect demonstrates a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of actions or consequences;
• Non-payment of a previously imposed penalty order.

154. The Committee was satisfied that its previous findings established that

a. The Registered Person had demonstrated a reckless disregard for the standards expected of an architect.
b. For all the reasons set out above, there was evidence of serious and persistent dishonesty.

155. Taking all these matters together, the Committee concluded that the registrant’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect and was too serious to be dealt with by any other sanction, because no other sanction would be sufficient to uphold and maintain public confidence in the profession of architects.
156. In those circumstances, the Committee imposed an erasure order.
157. That order will remain in place permanently unless or until the Registered Person applies to re-join the register and is successful. The Committee recommends that any such application can only be made after a period of two years.