Mr Nilesh Pawar

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of
NILESH BHANUDAS PAWAR (070840B)
_______________

Held in person at the

National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO)
Regents Wharf
8 All Saints St
London
N1 9RL

On 28 September to 2 October 2026

And also held as a virtual hearing on 7 October and 9 October 2026
_______________

Present

Andrew Lewis (Legally Qualified Chair)
Robert Dearman (PCC Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

In this case, the ARB is represented by Ms Gemma Gillet, counsel, (“the Case Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley solicitors.

Mr Nilesh Pawar (“the Registered Person”) attended this hearing and was not legally represented.

 

 

Allegation

The allegation against the Registered Person is 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:
a. issue written terms of engagement and/or adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code of Conduct; and/or
b. record a variation, contrary to Standard 4.5 of the Architects Code of Conduct.
2. The Registered Person did not pay Business 1 in full despite receiving funds from the client to do so.
3. The Registered Person did not keep the client’s money in a designated interest-bearing account, contrary to Standard 7.2 of the Architects Code of Conduct.
4. The Registered Person’s actions at particular 2:
a. lacked integrity; and/or
b. were dishonest.

Background
1. The Registered Person is a registered architect and was the director of Studio Nesh Limited (The Company) at all material times until 2025.
2. In June 2021, Mr Sudhir Sehrawat, (the Referrer) purchased [Redacted] (“the Property”) together with his wife. The Property was a bungalow, which they intended to demolish and replace with a modern single-family residential home (the Project).
3. The Registered Person and Mr. Sehrawat have known each other since 2020 both professionally and socially, as they have worked together on other building projects and their children attended the same school.
4. The Property had originally been on the market in 2020 and been bought by a developer who had wanted to construct flats but been unable to obtain planning permission.
5. There were some preliminary discussions between the Registered Person and Mr. Sehrawat in 2020 but discussions began in earnest when Mr. Sehrawat bought the property. Initially, discussions were focused upon obtaining planning permission for a relatively modern build. All discussions were informal, usually at the Registered Person’s home.
6. Between 2021 and 2023, the Registered Person prepared the planning permission application, designed the Property and prepared the relevant drawings. He submitted a number of invoices, which were paid, along with invoices on another project upon which they were both engaged.
7. From 2021 until the end of 2024 the Registered Person and Mr. Sehrawat, via The Company, worked on the Project on the understanding that the Registered Person was acting as Mr. Sehrawat’s architect in respect of the Project.
8. Planning permission was obtained on 14 October 2022. A firm of structural engineers produced drawings based on the Registered Person’s concept designs in the summer of 2023. That company also provided details of the foundations which were excavated and poured in the summer of 2023. The Project involved the construction of a steel-framed building, covered in cladding.
9. After the completion of the foundations, the Registered Person introduced Mr. Sehrawat to a steel contractor MSB Steel Ltd (MSB). On 12 July 2023, Matthew Stephenson, the owner and Managing Director of MSB, sent an email to the Registered Person providing a quote for the steelwork. The quotation for the steelwork (only) totalled £117,400 + VAT. The written quotation provided that, “This price does not include any cold rolled members, cladding, metal decking, and labour associated with these 3 items”; prices were “to follow on completion of drawings”.
10. When MSB reviewed the construction drawings, they were dissatisfied with Bear Structures’ approach to the cantilever design. It was agreed that MSB would use their own structural engineer, and the problems were resolved. It was also agreed between Mr. Sehrawat, the Registered Person, and MSB that MSB would contract not with Mr. Sehrawat but directly with the Registered Person through his company Studio Nesh Limited. That was the subject of some discussion because both Mr. Sehrawat and Mr. Stephens regarded it as somewhat unusual, but that arrangement was agreed.
11. There is no dispute that between 21 March 2021 and 23 October 2023 the Registered Person sent Mr Sehrawat: 11 invoices in respect of work that he had completed. There is no dispute that 8 of those invoices related to the other project upon which they were engaged. Three of the invoices appear to relate to the property and amount to £21,000. All those invoices were paid.
12. Starting on 25 July 2023, the Registered Person sent Mr Sehrawat 8 invoices from Studio Nesh Limited, marked as follows:

1) 27.07.2023 – Supply of Steel only
2) 03.10.2023 – SAPS building control fee cold-rolled steel details
3) 07.11.2023 – supply of steel only. Additional steel as per new design.
4) 01.01.2024- Cladding and roof material Inv 1
5) 11.01.2024 – Cladding and roof material Inv 2
6) 07.03.2024 Cladding and roof material Inv 3
7) 16.03.2024 – Decking
8) 11.04.2024 – Cold Steel Supply
13. These invoices amounted in total to £483,628, and they were all paid by Mr. Sehrawat.
14. Problems arose when MSB submitted their invoices to Studio Nesh Limited. The Committee has set out those invoices in tabular form below.

 

Invoice Date	Invoice Number	Invoice Description	Invoice Total
10.01.2024	INV-2335	Deposit	£78,112.80
11.03.2024	INV-2424	Payment 2: Steelwork arrives on site	£69,112.80
04.04.2024	INV-2460	Payment 3	£57,640.80
29.05.2024	INV-2541	Payment 3	£58,131.60
		Total:	£262,998

 

 

15. The Company paid £78,812.80 in respect of the first invoice and £27,610 in respect of the second. No payment was made in respect of either the third or fourth invoice. The result was that only £105,422.80 was paid leaving a deficit of £157,576.20
16. A dispute arose between the three parties about payment in respect of the invoices, correspondence was exchanged, meetings took place and civil proceedings were commenced, which resulted in The Company being wound up in the Cardiff County Court on 3 October 2025.
17. Mr Sehrawat made a formal complaint to the ARB on 15 September 2024.
18. The Committee refers to the details of the dispute and the litigation below, where it is necessary to resolve the Particulars of the Allegation in this case.

Admissions
19. 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).
20. The Registered Person admitted Particular 1b of the Allegation and that was recorded as admitted and found proved in accordance with Rule 25(d).

Evidence
21. The Committee had before it:
1. A “Final Hearing Bundle” of 685 pages from the ARB which included the following:
a) The “Report to the PCC”, which contained a written statement of the ARB’s case;
b) Two witness statements from Sudir Sehrawat;
c) A Witness Statement of Mathew Stephens, the managing director of MSB;
d) The various invoices submitted both by MSB to The Company and from The Company to Mr. Sehrawat;
e) The correspondence between the Registered Person, The Company, Mr. Sehrawat, and their various lawyers, relating to the dispute about unpaid invoices from MSB to The Company;
f) Court documents relating to the winding up of The Company;
g) The Registered Person’s initial response to the Allegation.

2. A bundle of documents of 66 pages submitted by the Registered Person which included the following:
a) The Registered Person’s response to the Allegation;
b) A schedule of transactions between an account named Modulo and The Company;
c) A number of The Company’s bank statements;
d) Correspondence relating to another project which the Registered Person undertook for Mr. Sehrawat;
e) A schedule of payments marked Exhibit 13, setting out the payments, which the Registered Person gave evidence reflected The Company’s expenditure on the work undertaken for Mr. Sehrawat.

22. For the sake of completeness, the Committee records that the documents contained a number of communications attesting to the Registered Person’s good character and skill.
23. The Committee also heard evidence from the following witnesses:
I. Sudir Sehrawat
II. Matthew Stephens
III. The Registered Person

Submissions
24. The Committee received submissions on facts from the Case Presenter in which she drew the Committee’s attention to the relevant law and evidence. The Committee deals with her submissions, as necessary, when it deals with the particulars of the allegation.
25. The Committee received submissions from the Registered Person who dealt with each of the particulars of the allegation.
26. He submitted that the evidence showed that there was a written contract between himself and his company on the one hand, and Mr. Sehrawat. He submitted that the correspondence showed that solicitors acting for Mr. Sehrawat had sent a copy of the contract to him during correspondence.
27. With regard to the payment of invoices to MSB, he submitted that the evidence showed that he had paid MSB the money that was due to them and had only declined payments because they were not contractually due, or MSB’s work had not been done to a satisfactory standard. He submitted that just because MSB had raised an invoice, that did not entitle them to be paid until they had answered the questions that he raised. He submitted that the evidence showed that he was simply being honest and careful with his client’s money.
28. He submitted that the bank statements showed that he had been paying his client’s money into a separate interest-bearing account. He submitted that the Committee should accept that if he had said otherwise during discussions with Mr. Sehrawat, that was because he did not understand the position himself at that time, when he was under pressure.
29. With regard to the allegation of dishonesty or lack of integrity, the Registered Person submitted that the evidence showed that he had not been dishonest or lacked integrity, but had simply been cautious and careful in order to protect his client’s money.

Advice
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. The Committee must not speculate but can draw inferences from facts it has found proved. When drawing an inference, it should set out the facts it has found proved, the inferences it has drawn and explain why it has drawn them.
33. 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.
34. When assessing the evidence of witnesses, the Committee should remember both that memory is fallible and it should not place undue reliance upon memory or 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.
35. The Committee should consider each particular of the allegation separately. It does not follow that if it finds one particular of the allegation proved, it must find others proved.
36. 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 adverse findings. There is also evidence that people for whom he has worked think highly of him.
37. The Committee should have regard to this first because good character makes it less likely that the Registered Person would behave as alleged and more likely that he would tell the truth when giving evidence. How much weight the Committee gives to the Registered Person’s good character is a matter for the Committee.
38. With regard to dishonesty, the Committee should bear in mind the following.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. The test the Tribunal must apply 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.”
43. 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

44. The Committee deals with the details of their evidence, where appropriate. Nevertheless, the Committee wished to set out at this stage the view it formed of each of the witnesses after comparing their evidence to the contemporaneous documents put before the Committee and all the other evidence.
45. The Committee found that both Mr. Sehrawat and Mr. Stephens were reliable witnesses whose evidence was consistent with the documents generated throughout the Project.
46. The Committee observed that Mr. Sehrawat assisted the Committee by readily accepting that a number of the early invoices, which the ARB had thought were in relation to the Project, were in fact submitted in relation to the other project upon which the Registered Person was working for him.
47. The Committee observed that Mr. Stephens readily acknowledged that there had been no written contract between MSB and The Company and that he could not remember the dates of discussions, which he had not recorded at the time. He identified in his written and oral evidence the dates upon which he had supplied quotations for MSB’s work, but acknowledged that he could not recall how those documents had been sent to the Registered Person.
48. Taking those matters together, the Committee concluded that both witnesses were honest and reliable, and the Committee readily accepted their evidence.
49. With regard to the Registered Person, the Committee observed that his accounts of a number of matters had changed throughout the course of the Project and the subsequent litigation. It also observed that there were areas where his account was difficult to reconcile with the contemporaneous documents. The Committee deals with the significant examples in its decision below.
50. Taking those matters together, the Committee concluded that it must approach the Registered Person’s evidence with caution and could not readily rely upon it unless it was supported by contemporaneous documents.
51. The Committee then considered each Particular of the Allegation that had not been admitted and reminded itself that particular 1(b) had been admitted as set out above.

The Allegation

Particular 1. Found proved.The Registered Person did not provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code. Found proved.

52. The Committee reminded itself of the provisions of Standard 4.4, which provides that:
1. You are expected to ensure that before you undertake any professional work you have entered into a written agreement with the client which adequately covers:
• the contracting parties;
• the scope of the work:
• the fee or method of calculating it;
• who will be responsible for what ;
• any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;
• the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;
• a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by ARB;
• the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed;
• that you have a complaints-handling procedure available on request;
• that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to this Code.
53. The Registered Person gave evidence that he had agreed written terms of engagement by means of a document dated 5 August 2020, which he had delivered personally to Mr. Sehrawat at his house on that date. Mr. Sehrawat gave evidence that he had not entered into any written agreement with the Registered Person or The Company and gave evidence, supported by documents that he and his family had been in Scotland on that day.
54. The Registered Person produced an unsigned copy document which was dated 5 August 2020 and purported to be the written terms of engagement between The Company and Mr Sehrawat. He told the Committee that this document had been sent to him during the dispute about unpaid invoices by solicitors acting for Mr. Sehrawat. He acknowledged that none of the letters from those solicitors mentioned the contract or purported to attach it to their correspondence.
55. The Committee saw that the document first appeared in the documentation referred to in and attached to a letter (sent by email) dated 11 February 2025 from solicitors acting for the Registered Person.
56. In those circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the document was first produced to Mr Sehrawat in February 2025 by solicitors acting for the Registered Person and The Company and not those acting for Mr Sehrawat.
57. The Committee also had regard to an email sent by the Registered Person to Mr Sehrawat on 7 November 2024, in which he said: “It will be best for Studionesh to pause working on the Project until we have a contract in place for our scope and services. Our insurance providers would like the same. We are drafting a contract and will be ready by the middle of next week. It is taking a bit longer as we have to base our fees on a percentage of the build cost as recommended by ARB + quantify the work already done on the Project and any design changes”
58. The Registered Person’s explanation for this email is that he had forgotten that there was a written contract in existence.
59. The Committee rejected the Registered Person’s account because it is not consistent with the contemporaneous documents and the Committee cannot accept that the Registered Person would have forgotten in 2024 that there was a written contract in existence and then been able to remember in 2026 in precise detail that he had delivered it to Mr. Sehrawat’s house early on 5 August 2020. The Committee concluded that the document attached to the solicitor’s letter on 11 February 2025 originated from the Registered Person and did not reflect any agreement that had been entered into in August 2020.
60. Accordingly, the Committee found Particular 1a proved.

Particular 2. Found proved
The Registered Person did not pay Business 1 in full despite receiving funds from the client to do so.

61. For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee records that Business 1 has been referred to as MSB throughout these proceedings.
62. The Committee was satisfied that there was no dispute that the Registered Person or The Company had received funds from Mr. Sehrawat in the sum of £483,628. Mr. Sehrawat gave evidence that this money was intended to pay for steel work, which had either been done or required funds in advance to purchase materials. The Committee observed that the invoices were all marked, as set out above, to indicate that the money to be paid was for steel or steel work.
63. The Registered Person gave evidence that the sums paid were not, in fact, for steel or steelwork, but were invoices for architectural services that he had provided. He told the Committee that this arose because Mr. Sehrawat had asked him to characterise the invoices in this way in order to be able to reclaim VAT more easily.
64. The Registered Person told the Committee that the true purpose of the invoices was reflected in the revised invoices sent to Mr. Sehrawat by solicitors acting for him and The Company attached to their emailed letter of 11 February 2025 in which they claimed that the “narrative” on the invoices sent in 2023 and 2024 was incorrect and correct on the revised invoices.
65. Mr. Sehrawat denied this account and said that he was shocked to see the revised invoices. He said that if the Registered Person had submitted invoices for his architectural work, he would have paid, but the money he paid in 2023 and 2024 was for steelworks, as marked on the invoices sent to him.
66. Mr Stephens gave evidence that he had agreed to contract directly with the Registered Person and The Company, (albeit without the benefit of a written contract) because the Registered Person had assured him that he would be put in funds to pay for his work.
67. The Committee observed that the claim that the Company and the Registered Person had not received funds for the steel works was first raised in the solicitor’s letter referred to above. The Committee found that there was no mention in any of the written communications from the time the first invoice from MSB was received in January 2024 and paid in part, until that solicitors’ letter in February 2025, that the Registered Person and the Company had not been put in funds to pay MSB. Nor had any mention been made of the invoices delivered to Mr. Sehrawat by the Registered Person and The Company having an “incorrect narrative”.
68. For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the sums paid to The Company and the Registered Person were intended for the purpose set out in the invoices, namely the payment of steel works that had either been completed or were to be completed in due course.
69. The Committee then looked at the question of whether the Registered Person had paid in full, on the basis that that must mean payment in full of the money actually due to MSB. It acknowledged that the Registered Person was right that the mere delivery of an invoice did not mean that MSB was entitled to payment.
70. The Committee observed that the Registered Person raised issues in general terms about the payment of the invoices from MSB through the solicitor’s correspondence in February 2025 and in his own statement opposing the winding up of The Company.
71. Nevertheless, the Committee saw that, there was no mention of any fault in MSB’s work throughout all the discussion and correspondence in 2024. The Committee is satisfied that if the Registered Person had genuinely thought there was a reason why he should not pay the invoices from MSB, he would have raised that with MSB during 2024. On the contrary, he had assured both Mr. Sehrawat and Mr. Stephens that payment would be made as soon as possible.
72. The Committee also observed that there is no dispute that Mr. Sehrawat contacted the Registered Person to press him to make payment to MSB. Again, the Committee is satisfied that if there had been any reason why he should not pay those invoices, the Registered Person would have raised it with Mr. Sehrawat both to explain what he was doing on his behalf and because he had worked with Mr. Sehrawat on other projects and knew him personally.
73. The Committee heard evidence from both Mr Sehrawat and Mr Stephens that, at various times, the Registered Person told them that he was unable to make payments because his account was either frozen or locked as a result of a dispute with the bank. The Committee saw that the Registered Person produced a letter from his bank dated 11 January 2024, indicating that if he did not clear excess borrowing within 60 days, he would be unable to use his account. The Committee found that this was consistent with the Registered Person’s own evidence to it that, although his accounts were not frozen, there was “a glitch” in his bank account.
74. In answer to questions from the Committee, the Registered Person accepted that by the time the Company was wound up in 2025, he did not have the funds available to pay the outstanding invoices to MSB.
75. The committee was satisfied that this evidence showed it was more likely that the Registered Person did not pay the invoices because he had financial difficulties of one sort or another, and not because of any genuine dispute about the work done by MSB.
76. For these reasons, the Committee rejects the Registered Person’s evidence that he should not have paid the outstanding amount due to MSB, because there was a genuine dispute about the work they had done and he was acting only in the best interests of his own client.
77. For these reasons, the Committee is satisfied that the Registered Person had received funds from Mr. Sehrawat for the expressed purpose of paying for the steel work carried out by MSB. It was also satisfied that the sum claimed by MSB, namely £157,576.20, was due to MSB and there was no genuine dispute about the work that they had done.
78. Accordingly, the Committee found Particular 2 proved.

Particular 3. Found Proved.
The Registered Person did not keep the client’s money in a designated interest-bearing
account, contrary to Standard 7.2 of the Architects Code of Conduct.

79. The Committee reminded itself of Standard 7.2 which must be read in the context of Standard 7.1 and provides that
• 7.1 You are expected to keep proper records of all money held by you which belongs to a client or other third party, and to account for it at all times.
• 7.2 You should keep such money in a designated interest-bearing bank account, called a “client account” which is separate from any personal or business account.
80. The Registered Person accepted that he should keep money due to MSB in a separate interest-bearing account and maintained that he did.
81. The Committee read and heard evidence from Mr. Sehrawat to the effect that the Registered Person had acknowledged at a meeting that he had not kept the money in an appropriate account. The Registered Person said that he had said that, but was in error, partly because he had not understood his own banking arrangements and partly because he had been under some pressure at a meeting involving both Mr. Sehrawat and Mr. Stephens.
82. The Committee concluded that it should not rely entirely upon what was said at that meeting but should look at the totality of the evidence. The Committee reminded itself that the burden of proof is on the ARB to show that the Registered Person did not keep the money in a separate client account. It also bore in mind that this is a matter uniquely within the Registered Person’s own knowledge.
83. The Committee had regard to the bank statements put before it by the Registered Person, which he said showed that money was transferred to a separate interest-bearing account. The Committee observed that there was nothing in the documentation to show that the account he pointed to was a separate client account.
84. The Committee also observed that if money had been kept in a separate client account, it would have been available to pay the sums due to MSB before the Company was wound up. The Committee was satisfied that the point of having a separate client account is to ensure that the clients’ funds are protected and not simply used to pay for the expenses of an architect’s practice and lost to the client in any company winding up of the sort that occurred in this case.
85. For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the funds received for the payment of MSB had not been kept in a properly designated client account.
86. Accordingly, the Committee found Particular 3 proved.

Particular 4.
The Registered Person’s actions at particular 2:
a. lacked integrity; Found Proved.
b. were dishonest. Found Proved.
87. The Committee considered first the question of whether the Registered Person actions at particular 2 were dishonest.
88. The Committee reminded itself that the Registered Person is a man of good character, and it should have particular regard to that, in the ways set out above, when deciding whether or not he had been dishonest.
89. The Committee also reminded itself of the facts that it had found proved at Particular 2, in particular, that the Registered Person had received funds for the purpose of paying for the steel work carried out by MSB and that he had no reason to dispute the invoices supplied to him.
90. The Committee asked itself first what the Registered Person’s state of mind was about the money he had received which, the Committee has already found he was obliged to pay to MSB.
91. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person knew exactly why he had received the funds and if he had any doubt, he would have raised this with Mr. Sehrawat before a solicitor’s letter in February 2025.
92. The Committee also concluded that the Registered Person knew that he was obliged to pay MSB because if he had had any doubt about that, he would have raised it in correspondence in 2024, before the litigation in 2025.
93. The Committee then asked itself whether ordinary decent people would regard it as dishonest for the Registered Person to receive funds for a particular purpose and not have used them for that purpose.
94. The Committee concluded that they would, because they would regard it as a breach of the trust placed in an architect to do what he promised.
95. For the sake of completeness, the Committee is satisfied that the failure to deal properly with clients’ money, in the way that the Committee has found, and the breach of trust which this failure represents also amounts to a lack of integrity because it is fundamental to Architectural practice that architects can be trusted to deal properly with their client’s money.
96. Having found particulars 1, 2, 3 and 4, of the Allegation proved, the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct (UPC).

Submissions and advice
97. The Committee invited submissions from the Case Presenter and the Registered Person.
98. The Case Presenter drew the Committee’s attention to section 14(1)(a) of the Architects Act 1997 which sets out the Committee’s duty to investigate whether the Registered Person is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The Case Presenter also set out the approach that the Committee should take to making a finding of UPC, and the Committee has followed that in its approach set out below.
99. The Case Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct breached Standards 1, 4.4 and 4.5 and Standard 7 of The Architects Code: Standards of professional conduct and practice 2017 (the Code) which the Committee sets out in full below.
100. She submitted that the Committee should find that each of the matters proved amounted to UPC because of their seriousness, including the effect they had on the clients, other professionals and the reputation of the profession.
101. With regard to particular 1, she submitted that adequate written terms of engagement were essential in this case because this was a complicated project where the Registered Person had taken responsibility for payment of at least one of the contractors. She submitted that the lack of clear terms contributed to money being misplaced, and a contractor being unpaid for many months.
102. With regard to particular 2, the Case Presenter reminded the Committee that it had found that the Registered Person had not paid a contractor in full, despite taking large sums of money from his clients. She submitted that the result was that the project was stalled, and significant professional, financial, and personal hardship was caused to both the contractors and the Registered Person’s clients. She submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct was aggravated by the false narrative that he had created. She submitted that an architect failing to pay a contractor significant sums when they had received funds to do so, fell far short of what was expected of an architect.
103. With regard to Particular 3. the Case Presenter submitted that standard 7.1 and 7.2 existed to protect clients’ money in a case just such as this where the Registered Person’s company went into liquidation. She submitted that failure to protect client money in this way would be a serious matter, even if there had been no finding of dishonesty.
104. With regard to particular 4, the Case Presenter reminded the Committee that it had found that the Registered Person knew why he was holding the client funds, knew he was obliged to pay MSB and did not do so. She reminded the Committee that it had found this to be a breach of trust. She submitted that this conduct led to significant harm to the Registered Person’s clients. She submitted that this was conduct that was liable to damage the reputation in the profession as a whole.
105. The Registered Person indicated that he would call no evidence and make no submissions at this stage.

The Committee’s approach
106. The Committee accepted the advice of the chair, heard in private session, that the Case Presenter had stated the legal position correctly and followed that advice in its approach set out below.
107. The Committee reminded itself that a finding of UPC is a matter for its own independent judgment having regard to any facts found proved. There is no burden or standard of proof.
108. 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.
109. 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.
110. 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.
111. 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.
112. 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).
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. The Committee had regard to the following provisions of the 2017 Code which was the code in force at all relevant times until 1 September 2025.

Standard 1.1 which provides:
• 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 4.4 which provides:

4.4 You are expected to ensure that before you undertake any professional work you have entered into a written agreement with the client which adequately covers:
• the contracting parties;
• the scope of the work;
• the fee or method of calculating it;
• who will be responsible for what;
• any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;
• the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;
• a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by the ARB;
• the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed;
• that you have a complaints-handling procedure available on request;
• that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to the Code.

Standard 7 which provides:
• 7.1 You are expected to keep proper records of all money held by you which belongs to a client or other third party, and to account for it at all times.
• 7.2 You should keep such money in a designated interest-bearing bank account, called a “client account” which is separate from any personal or business account.
• 7.3 You are expected to instruct the bank in writing and ensure that all money in the client account is held as clients’ money, and that the bank cannot combine it with any other account, or exercise any right of set-off or counterclaim against it.
• 7.4 You should ensure that money is not withdrawn from a client account to make a payment unless it is made to or on behalf of a client on the client’s specific written instructions.
• 7.5 Unless otherwise agreed by the client, you should arrange for any interest (or other benefit) accruing from a client account to be paid to the client.

116. The Committee adopted the approach suggested by the Case Presenter and examined each particular of the Allegation in turn to decide if each matter proved amounted to UPC.

The Committee’s decision
117. With regard to Particular 1a, the Committee agreed with the Case Presenter that the matters found proved were serious, and amounted to UPC. The Committee was satisfied that, in a case of the complexity present in this case, it was of particular importance that the terms of engagement be recorded in writing, and the other terms provided for in the code be included. The Committee was also satisfied that the Registered Person’s failure to comply with the provisions of standard 4.4 contributed to the other failings in this case.
118. With regard to Particular 1b, which the Registered Person admitted at the outset of the hearing, the Committee decided that it would not be fair to regard this as an additional example of UPC because the Committee found that there was no written agreement to vary. The Committee decided it would proceed on the basis that there had been no proper written terms of engagement reflecting either the original agreement between the Registered Person and his clients or amended form, when he entered into a direct agreement with MSB.
119. With regard to Particular 2, the Committee found that the Registered Person’s failure to pay the steel contractor, in circumstances where he had significant funds to do so, was particularly serious for the following reasons:
• Being able to be trusted with clients’ money is fundamental to the relationship between an architect and their client.
• The Registered Person’s failure to pay caused significant harm to both his own clients and to MSB Ltd. The Committee accepted the evidence that the project was significantly delayed and both the Registered Person’s clients and MSB were caused significant financial harm.
• Misappropriating clients’ funds has a significant impact upon the reputation of the profession. The Committee is satisfied that if potential clients feel they cannot trust architects with their money, they will be reluctant to instruct them, and this will have an impact upon the profession as a whole.
120. Accordingly, the Committee found that its finding under Particular 2 amounted to UPC.
121. With regard to Particular 3, the Committee observed that the provisions of the Code relating to keeping client money separate are an important protection for clients in the event that an architect’s practice becomes insolvent. In this case, the Registered Person’s breach of his obligations was particularly serious for two reasons:
I. The amount of money he was dealing with was particularly large, which, in the Committee’s view, made his conduct particularly culpable.
II. The Registered Person’s failure led to significant harm, which would have been prevented if he had complied with his obligations.
122. Accordingly, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s failure to comply with his obligations as found under Particular 3 amounted to UPC.
123. With regard to Particular 4 the Committee reminded itself that although dishonesty is always a serious matter, it can cover a wide range of situations, some of which are more serious than others.
124. The Committee found that the Registered Person’s dishonesty in this case was particularly serious for the following reasons.
• The Registered Person’s dishonesty arose during a central part of his practice, namely the administration of clients’ money during a building project for which the Registered Person was responsible;
• The sums of money involved were large;
• The harm done to the Registered Person’s clients and MSB was significant, for the reasons set out above.
• The Registered Person’s dishonesty, in the course of his practice, causing loss to his clients and others, will have a particularly significant impact upon the reputation of the profession.
125. Accordingly, the Committee found that the Registered Person’s dishonesty in this case amounted to UPC.
126. The Committee then looked at the position as a whole. It reminded itself that the individual matters proved in this case arose from a single project and each was aggravated by the other matters found proved, and in particular, by the finding that the Registered Person had acted dishonestly.
127. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct, taken as a whole, amounted to UPC.
128. Having found the Registered Person guilty of UPC, the Committee considered which, if any, sanction to impose.

Sanction
129. The Committee heard submissions from the Case Presenter and the Registered Person.
130. The Case Presenter reminded the Committee of the relevant law and guidance, and in particular drew the Committee’s attention to the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance (SG).
131. She reminded the Committee that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish a Registered Person, but to protect members of the public, uphold competence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of competence and conduct for the profession.
132. The Case Presenter reminded the Committee of the available sanctions, and reminded the Committee of the correct approach to finding a sanction that is proportionate, (that is to say sufficiently restrictive to meet the needs of a sanction, but no more restrictive) namely by starting with the least restrictive sanction and progressing through the sanctions to the sanction that achieves the Committee’s aim.
133. The Case Presenter drew the Committee’s attention to the aggravating and mitigating features set out in the SG, to which the Committee refers below. She also reminded the Committee of its findings at stages one and two, including the finding of serious dishonesty and drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8 of the SG, to which the Committee refers in its decision.
134. The Case Presenter submitted that the Registered Person had not shown insight or undertaken remediation that could reassure the Committee that he would not act in the same way if he were in a similar position in the future.
135. The Case Presenter reminded the Committee that the Registered Person is a man of good character who had the benefit of positive testimonials and he had engaged in the regulatory proceedings.
136. The Registered Person acknowledged that the matters that had been found proved were serious and were borderline UPC.
137. He told the Committee that he had not secured testimonials from colleagues because it would be unfair on them because they did not know what had happened in this case. He emphasised that neither the people working in the company nor the accountants knew anything of what had happened, and he took full responsibility for what he did.
138. He said that “we had the money in one pot and we didn’t handle that properly.” He added, “we got overconfident and relied on our previous good references, and I take full responsibility.”
139. The Committee received the advice of the Chair, which it accepted and followed in its approach set out below.

The Committee’s approach
140. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to all the evidence provided to it and took into account the submissions made by the Case Presenter and the Registered Person. 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.
141. 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 a sanction may have a punitive effect.
142. 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.’
143. 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.
144. 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.
145. 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:
• Reprimand,
• Penalty order,
• Suspension,
• Erasure.

The Committee’s decision
146. The Committee identified the following aggravating factors:
• The Committee has already found that the Registered Person’s conduct caused significant harm to both his clients and a contractor by causing them to lose significant sums of money. It has also found that his conduct had the potential to do considerable damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole.
• The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person’s conduct was confined to a single project but found that it persisted for more than a year;
• The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person accepted responsibility for his actions during his submissions at the sanction stage. Nevertheless, he denied any failings both before and during the first two stages of the hearing.
• Turning to insight, remorse and remediation, the Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person had accepted in general terms that what he had done was wrong. The Committee also acknowledged that the Registered Person was entitled to defend himself in proceedings as he thought fit. Nevertheless, the result is that the Registered Person had not demonstrated any understanding of why he acted as he did (apart from overconfidence), why what he did was wrong, the effect that his conduct had on clients, other professionals, and the wider public, and how he should conduct himself in the future. For these reasons, there was insufficient evidence of insight or remediation sufficient to reassure the Committee that there was anything other than a high risk that the Registered Person’s misconduct would be repeated if he were in the same position again.
• There has been a finding of dishonesty in this case. The Committee has already found that this dishonesty was serious, both because it was sustained and because of the impact it had.
• The Registered Person’s misconduct was not a single isolated incident, but a series of deliberate steps which apparently kept his business going while leaving him unable to fulfil his obligations.
• The Committee is satisfied that the Registered Person’s conduct in telling his clients and MSB that there was only a temporary problem or “glitch” in his bank account, and he would pay within a short period, was calculated to conceal his wrongdoing in misappropriating the funds that were intended for MSB.

147. The Committee found the following mitigating factors.
• The Registered Person’s good character.

148. The Committee balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and concluded that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors to a significant extent. In arriving at this conclusion, it had regard to paragraphs 8.3 and 8.4 of the PCC Sanctions Guidance 2022 (SG) which provides:
8.3 The following examples are of conduct generally considered more serious, and so more likely to result in erasure:

• A deliberate cover up when things have gone wrong;
• Dishonesty resulting in a direct risk to clients or the wider public;
• Dishonesty affecting someone vulnerable;
• Dishonesty resulting in personal financial gain;
• Premeditated, systematic or longstanding deception.

8.4 In contrast, incidents of opportunistic or spontaneous dishonesty, and one-off incidents may be considered less serious by the PCC.

149. The Committee had already found that there had been a cover-up when things went wrong; there was a direct risk to clients and the wider public for the reasons set out above. The Committee acknowledged that there was no evidence that the Registered Person had enriched himself as a result of his conduct, but he had taken funds for the purpose of his own business. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s conduct fell short of being systematic, but it was a long-standing deception, and each step required a significant degree of premeditation. The Committee was satisfied that it certainly could not describe the Registered Person’s conduct as opportunistic, spontaneous, or a one-off incident.
150. The Committee had already found that the dishonesty in this case was particularly serious because it occurred during the course of the Registered Person’s practice, caused significant harm, and undermined public confidence in architects. Against this background, the Committee considered each of the sanctions in turn.
151. The Committee considered first whether it should impose no sanction. The Committee had regard to paragraph 6.1 of the 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.
152. 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.
153. 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 suspension would be insufficient to uphold public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
154. The Committee then considered whether to impose a suspension order. The Committee reminded itself of paragraph 6.4.1 and 6.4.3 of the SG which provide:
• 6.4.1 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. A suspension has a deterrent effect and can be used to send out a signal to the profession and to the public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting of an architect.
• 6.4.3 A suspension order may be considered appropriate where one or more of the following factors are present (this list is not exhaustive):

• The failing or conduct is so serious that a reprimand or penalty order would be insufficient to protect the public or uphold public confidence in the profession;
• The behaviour is not fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect;
• There is no evidence of entrenched integrity issues;
• There is a lack of sufficient insight or remorse;
• The PCC is satisfied that the behaviour is unlikely to be repeated;
• The conduct is capable of being rectified;
• There is no evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since the incident;
• The architect has failed to pay a previously imposed penalty order.

155. Taking all these matters together, the Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s misconduct was serious enough for the imposition of a suspension order. However, the Committee had already observed that, although there had been no evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since the misconduct in this case, it could not be satisfied that the Registered Person’s conduct was unlikely to be repeated if similar circumstances arose, because dishonesty is very difficult to remediate. Also the Registered Person had not demonstrated sufficient insight or remediation to overcome this hurdle, in light of the length of time that his dishonesty had persisted.
156. Most important of all, the Committee concluded that sustained dishonesty over several months involving the misappropriation of clients’ money in the course of a project and resulting in significant harm was, in any event, fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect.
157. Accordingly, the Committee then considered an erasure order and turned to paragraph 6.5 of Sanctions Guide 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.

158. 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 architect 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.

159. The Committee was satisfied that its previous findings established that all but the second and last bullet points of paragraph 6.5.2 is engaged.
160. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect, and too serious to be dealt with by any other sanction because no other sanction would be sufficient to protect members of the public, uphold and maintain public confidence in the profession of architects and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
161. Accordingly, the Committee imposed an erasure order.
162. 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 3 years. The Committee has chosen more than the minimum period of two years (set out in the Architect’s Act 1997) in order to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct in this case.