Live Chat
THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of
PETER DUNCAN STACKHOUSE (048866F)
_______________
Present:
Julian Weinberg (Chair)
Janice Tam (Architect Member)
Paul Grant (Lay Member)
_______________
Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Peter Duncan Stackhouse (“the Registered Person”)
A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The disciplinary order is a Penalty Order of £1,500.
In respect of the charges against Peter Duncan Stackhouse (048866F) (“the Registered Person”): The Registered Person:
a. accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against him in the terms set out below; and
b. confirms that he has been offered the opportunity to appear before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee to present his case but has foregone his right to do so.
The Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against the Registered Person in the terms set out below.
Allegation
1. An allegation of Unacceptable Professional Conduct has been brought by the ARB against the Registered Person. In support of the allegation, the ARB relies upon the following particulars:
1. The Registered Person failed to accurately and/or adequately complete the Professional Consultant’s Certificates;
2. The Registered Person did not provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code; and
3. The Registered Person failed to certify Practical Completion.
Statement of Agreed Facts
2. The Registered Person is a registered architect with his own practice, Stackhouse Design Ltd.
3. On 24 June 2016, Your Property Development (Pearn) Ltd (“YPD”) was incorporated for the purpose of purchasing, refurbishing and converting a former convalescent home at [Address Redacted from Public Decision] (“the Property”) into ten apartments for the over 55s. The Property is a Grade II listed building.
4. The Registered Person was engaged by YPD as Architect, Contract Administrator and Principal Designer. The Registered Person also carried out Project Management duties.
5. An application for planning permission and listed building consent was submitted by the Registered Person on 28 November 2016. Planning permission was granted on 6 March 2017.
6. Works commenced at the Property on 14 August 2017.
7. In September 2018, Mr PH purchased apartment 5 at the Property. In January 2019, Mr Forsyth (the Referrer) purchased apartment 6. Prior to purchase, Mr PH-‘s solicitor raised queries with the vendor’s solicitor and requested a copy of a House Builders Warranty. The vendor’s solicitor confirmed that there was no House Builders Warranty and that a CML Professional Consultant’s Certificate would be issued for the apartment on full completion.
8. The Registered Person signed ten Professional Consultant’s Certificates (“PCCs”), one for each apartment in the Property. Each PCC, signed by the Registered Person, stated that the Property was “generally constructed to a satisfactory standard.” A PCC was issued to each leaseholder as part of the package of information provided to each resident on taking up residence. The leaseholders understood the PCCs to relate to all individual apartments and to all common parts, as well as the building itself.
9. Upon moving into their respective apartments, Mr PH and the Referrer identified numerous snagging issues. In apartment 6, the Referrer identified problems including hot water coming through the cold water tap in the kitchen, severe draughts through windows and one outer door, and significant gaps in wall and ceiling angles and in the plasterwork. More widely across the Property, issues included rotten wood in many of the windows, defective and flaking paintwork, gas leaks, problems with electrics and lighting, and issues with the glazing bars on the veranda. Issues were raised with the Registered Person and a site meeting took place on 3 April 2019.
10. Further issues arose with the Property, including in respect of the roof. In December 2019, an independent roof survey was carried out, covering the internal structure of thereof where there were concerns about visible water ingress. DFR Roofing were subsequently appointed by the developers to undertake repair works to the roof in 2020.
11. In early 2020, the directors of Pearn Residents Co (a number of the residents of the Property) agreed to collate an updated snagging list to be sent to the developers and the Registered Person, and agreed to pursue them for remedial action.
12. As the issues were not being resolved, independent contractors were appointed to complete remedial works. The total cost to fix the roof issues alone was £6,530.40. Further remedial work was carried out to both the individual apartments and the communal areas of the Property, the costs of which were borne by the leaseholders.
13. On 8 March 2021, the Pearn Residents Co Committee sent a letter of claim to the Registered Person. A further letter of claim was sent in January 2022. On 21 February 2022, The Referrer submitted a formal complaint to the ARB on behalf of the residents of the Property.
Admissions
Professional Consultant’s Certificates
14. The Registered Person admits that he failed to accurately and/or adequately complete the Professional Consultant’s Certificates. The Registered Person admits that the PCCs he issued were deficient. The Registered Person further admits that the PCCs were issued before Practical Completion had been certified and before the building works were complete, notwithstanding that his own appointment documents stated that PCCs would be provided upon the “satisfactory completion of the building works”.
15. The Registered Person acknowledges that purchasers and their lenders were entitled to rely upon the PCCs as an accurate and complete statement of the position. The Registered Person admits that in preparing and completing the PCCs he failed to utilise the reasonable care and skill to be expected of a competent architect, and that his failure was significantly below the standard expected. The Registered Person admits that his actions were a breach of Standard 6.1 of the Architects Code (2017).
Terms of Engagement
16. The Registered Person admits that he did not provide adequate terms of engagement and that this was contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code (2010).
17. The Registered Person admits that his appointment letter dated 12 June 2016 failed to comply with Standard 4.4 in a number of significant respects. It did not refer to YPD as the contracting party. It contained no mention of provisions for the suspension or termination of the agreement. It made no mention of professional indemnity insurance cover and it contained no mention of a complaints-handling procedure.
18. The Registered Person admits that he had a professional obligation to provide his client with full and adequate terms of engagement that complied with the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code. The Registered Person admits that his actions were a breach of Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code (2010).
Failure to Certify Practical Completion
19. The Registered Person admits that he failed to certify Practical Completion in respect of the works at the Property. The Registered Person has acknowledged that such a certificate should have been issued.
20. The Registered Person admits that, as Contract Administrator, the certification of Practical Completion was his responsibility and that the decision as to whether Practical Completion had been achieved was a matter for him in his professional capacity. The Registered Person admits that his failure to certify Practical Completion was compounded by the fact that he had already issued PCCs that were not adequate, and that together these failures meant that the interests of the purchasers were not adequately protected.
21. The Registered Person admits that in failing to certify Practical Completion he failed to utilise the reasonable care and skill to be expected of a competent architect, and that his actions were a breach of Standard 6.1 of the Architects Code (2017).
Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct
22. In light of the admissions above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
23. Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code (2010) (“the Code”) requires architects to enter into a written agreement with the client before any professional work is undertaken. The written agreement must adequately cover:
a. the contracting parties;
b. the scope of the work:
c. the fee or method of calculating it;
d. who will be responsible for what;
e. any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;
f. the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement;
g. a statement that you have adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by the Board;
h. your complaints handling procedure, including details of any special arrangements for resolving disputes.
24. The Registered Person admits that he did not provide adequate terms of engagement, in that his terms of engagement did not comply with Standard 4.4 of the Code. The Registered Person accepts that he had a professional obligation to provide full and adequate terms of engagement that complied with the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code. The Registered Person accepts that the provision of clear, understandable written terms of engagement before commencing work is essential to maintain transparency, build trust, and uphold professional standards.
25. Standard 6.1 of the Architects Code (2017) relates to carrying out professional work conscientiously and with due regard to relevant technical and professional standards. It requires an architect to carry out their work with skill and care. The Registered Person admits that in issuing the PCCs in the form that he did, and in failing to certify Practical Completion, he fell significantly below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent architect.
26. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of Standards 4.4 and 6.1 of the Architects Code and that his conduct amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
Disciplinary Order:
27. The Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee, with the consent of the parties and having taken account of its responsibilities to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession, makes the following disciplinary order:
a) A penalty order of £1,500.
28. The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions. He has also admitted that these amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
29. The admitted allegation has the potential to diminish both the Registered Person’s reputation and that of the profession generally and therefore the parties agree that the Registered Person’s conduct is sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order. In light of the admissions, the parties agree that a penalty order of £1,500 is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.
30. The parties agree that a penalty order is proportionate in this case on the basis that the failings in this case are too serious to warrant a reprimand, as they relate to fundamental aspects of architectural practice where lay individuals relied upon the Registered Person’s expertise. The parties also agree however that the Registered Person has previous good disciplinary history, has shown insight into his failings and the conduct represents work on a single project The parties therefore agree that a penalty order is appropriate to mark the level of unacceptable conduct.