Mr Philip Wontner-Smith

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

PHILIP WONTNER-SMITH (098900B)

Held as a video hearing on:

27-30 April 2026

———-

Present

Sean Hammond (Chair)
Robert Dearman (PCC Architect Member)
Alastair Cannon (PCC Lay Member)

———–

 

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) was represented by Ms Yasmin Omotosho (“the Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Mr Philip Wontner-Smith (“The Registered Person”) has attended this hearing and is legally represented by Mr Matthew Corrie instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP.

 

Allegation

 

1. The allegation made against the Registered Person is that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”).

2. The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) relies upon the following factual particulars in support of the allegation:

1) The Registered Person did not adequately and/or appropriately carry out his duties as a contract administrator in that he:

a. did not carry out adequate inspections; and/or
b. did not issue payment certificates and/or adequate instructions.

2) The Registered Person did not provide an adequate building contract, contrary
to Standard 6 of the Code.

3) The Registered Person did not manage a conflict of interest appropriately in
that he:

a. did not disclose in writing and/or make it clear that a conflict of interest would arise by acting as both architect and mediator; and
b. did not seek and/or receive written consent from parties involved.

4) The Registered Person did not act appropriately in that he facilitated and/or
agreed to a cash payment being made to the Contractor to reduce VAT.

5) The Registered Person’s actions at particular 4:

a. lacked integrity; and/or
b. were dishonest

 

[Preliminary Matters were considered in private]

Factual Background

3. The Registered Person is a registered Architect and Director of his own practice, PWS Architecture + Design Ltd (“the Company”).

4. The Referrer purchased a residential property (“the property”) in November 2021.

5. On 4 January 2022, the Referrer contacted the Registered Person by email stating:

“I’m looking for architectural help with a kitchen/diner extension to my modest end-terrace home … a two-up, two-down, about 4.5 metres wide. There is
an existing flat-roof extension that is definitely at the end of its life, so I’d be looking to open up the back of the house (existing kitchen) and do a full-width, single-storey,
pitched-roof extension (as other houses in the terrace have done). Permitted development footprint (or less). Budget £30-40k – at least, I hope that will do it. Extension
needs to accommodate oil combi boiler (existing floor-standing model is in good working order and 6 years old); I would consider a new boiler or a heat pump if
space/costs permitted. I’d also like to incorporate a utility room. I can send photos of the space from inside and out in the first instance, if that would help? Looking to
use a local firm for the design/plans and for the building, which I would ideally like to do this spring/summer…”

6. The Registered Person visited the property on 20 January 2022.

7. The Registered Person subsequently sent a fee proposal to the Referrer on 22 January 2022.

8. The project proceeded through the concept stage, planning application and approval, technical design and building control approval and on to a competitive tender.

9. The prices quoted by various contractors during the initial tender process were higher than expected. A subsequent tender took place with a reduced scope of works to reduce the cost to the Referrer. In December 2022, the Registered Person received four tenders from contractors. One of the contractors (“the Building Contractor”) suggested a cash payment of £10,000 to further reduce the cost of the build. This made the Building Contractor’s tender the cheapest of the four. The Registered Person forwarded the four tenders to the Referrer for her consideration. Following an exchange of emails between the Registered Person and the Referrer in December 2022, the Referrer sent an email to the Registered Person on 4 January 2023 confirming that she wished to proceed with the tender from the Building Contractor, who had submitted the lowest tender.

10. The contract between the Referrer and the Building Contractor is in the form of a RIBA Domestic Building Contract 2018 (“the Building Contract”) and is dated 7 January 2023.

11. The Building Contract named the Company as the Architect / Contract Administrator.

12. The section of the Building Contract in respect of liquidated damages payable to the Referrer in the event of late, or non-completion of work by the Building Contractor was left blank by the Registered Person. Therefore, the Referrer was not automatically entitled to payment from the Building Contractor in the event of late, or non-completion of the works.

13. The Building Contract set out construction milestones in the project at which point payments would be made to the Building Contractor provided that the work had been completed to the required standard with a Payment Certificate to be sent by the Registered Person in his capacity of contract administrator confirming this. The last milestone provided for the cash payment of £10,000.

14. The Building Contract also named the Company to act as mediator in any dispute between the Referrer and the Building Contractor.

15. The Registered Person visited the property on 28 March 2023 to inspect the site after demolition of the previous building had taken place. During this visit, the Registered Person did not identify that the boundary wall with the Referrer’s neighbour’s property had not been demolished in line with his design. The Registered Person proceeded to sign off the foundations with the Building Contractor. This impacted the project as the foundations needed to be laid again and the Referrer’s neighbour informed.

16. After the visit of 28 March 2023, the Registered Person did not visit the property to inspect the works and did not issue Payment Certificates in accordance with his duties as contract administrator.

17. The relationship between the Referrer and the Building Contractor subsequently broke down due to project delays and the quality of the work. On 2 June 2023, the Building Contractor was asked by the Referrer to leave the Property. The Building Contractor returned on 5 June 2023 to complete the works; however, the Referrer turned the Building Contractor away on arrival and thereafter denied the Building Contractor access to the site.

18. The Referrer raised concerns to the Registered Person about the Building Contractor relating to alleged ‘code violations’, defective work, breaches of contract and additional costs she had incurred.

19. The Registered Person, acting as mediator, provided a preliminary report dated 15 July 2023. The Referrer provided a detailed written response to the Registered Person’s report.

20. The Referrer made a formal complaint to the ARB on 21 March 2024.

 

Admissions

21. The allegation was put to the Registered Person and Mr Corrie informed the Committee that the Registered Person admitted the facts in particulars 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, and 5b of the allegation. Mr Corrie submitted that the Registered Person did not admit particular 5a because this was put by the ARB as an alternative to particular 5b of the allegation.

22. Following questions seeking clarification by the Committee in respect of particulars 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, and 4 of the allegation, which contain the words “and/or” Mr Corrie confirmed that the Registered Person admitted the facts in particulars 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, and 5b of the allegation in full.

 

Findings of Fact

23. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to the following:

• The ARB Hearing Bundle containing:

i. The Report of the ARB Solicitor dated 24 September 2025
ii. The witness statement of the Referrer dated 3 April 2025 and attached exhibits
iii. The Expert Report of Mr Euan Geddes dated 15 July 2025 and attached exhibits
iv. The Registered Person’s response to the ARB, including written submissions and attached exhibits

• The Acknowledgment of Hearing Form completed by the Registered Person

• The Registered Person’s Defence Bundle containing:
i. The Registered Person’s witness statement dated 17 April 2026 and supporting documentation
ii. The Registered Person’s CPD records and supporting documentation
iii. Testimonials
iv. Example of rewritten Domestic Building Contract
v. Example of rewritten Fee Proposal
vi. Example of rewritten Pre-Contract Meeting Actions and Documents

• Letter from ‘ADHD Certify’ dated 5 March 2026 confirming the Registered Person’s diagnosis of ADHD

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

25. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s admissions to the factual particulars were unequivocal and made with the benefit of legal advice.

26. The Committee therefore found the facts in particulars 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, and 5b of the allegation proved by reason of the Registered Person’s admissions pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Rules.

27. The Committee determined that having found particular 5b of the allegation proved, it was not required to make a finding of fact in respect of the lack of integrity alleged in particular 5a as this was put forward by the ARB as a lesser alternative to the dishonesty alleged in particular 5b.

 

Unacceptable Professional Conduct

28. Having found particulars 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, and 5b of the allegation proved the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to UPC.

29. The Committee was provided with written submissions by the Presenter and Mr Corrie containing legal skeleton arguments as to the approach the Committee should adopt in relation to its consideration of UPC. These submissions were fundamentally at odds with each other. In addition, both counsel made oral submissions to the Committee.

30. The Presenter submitted that when considering UPC, the Committee should adopt a cumulative approach. She submitted that the charge of UPC brought by the ARB is an overarching one, and, when determining UPC, the Committee should consider the conduct of the Registered Person in the round, and not each particular in isolation. She submitted that the proven facts in this matter lend itself to this approach as the matter concerns one client, one contract and one course of conduct over a period of time. She submitted that the single charge of UPC reflects the overall proven conduct of the Registered Person in particulars 1 to 5 of the allegation. The Presenter relied upon the judgment in the case of Vranicki v ARB [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin) in support of this submission.

31. The Presenter further submitted that in the case of Schodlok v GMC [2015] EWCA Civ 769, the Court of Appeal addressed, albeit obiter, whether multiple findings of non-serious misconduct could cumulatively amount to serious misconduct. She submitted that although the point was not addressed determinatively in that case, the Court indicated that, in principle, multiple findings of non-serious misconduct might, in certain circumstances, cumulatively amount to serious misconduct. The Presenter submitted that it is critical to note that within the GMC framework, a finding of misconduct (whether serious or otherwise) is not itself a finding of fact. Rather, it is a qualitative evaluative judgment applied to established facts, determining whether those facts meet the threshold for misconduct. The Presenter submitted that a further evaluative step is then required to determine whether fitness to practise is impaired. She submitted that this approach does not translate directly to the statutory framework governing the Architects Registration Board. She submitted that under section 14(1) of the Architects Act 1997, the relevant question is not whether the Registered Person’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, but whether, based on established facts, the Registered Person has committed UPC. She submitted that the inquiry is therefore backward-looking rather than forward-looking. The Presenter submitted that, accordingly, the correct approach is, as set out in Vranicki, for the Committee to consider whether the factual allegations are established and then, in light of those which are established, to consider whether UPC has been committed by the Registered Person.

32. The Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s proven conduct had breached the following standards of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”):

i. Particular 1: Standards 2.1, 6.1, and 6.3.
ii. Particular 2: Standards 6.3, and 6.4.
iii. Particular 3: Standards 1.3, 2.1, 6.1, and 6.4.
iv. Particular 4: Standards 1.1 and 6.4.
v. Particular 5; Standard 1.1.

33. The Presenter referred the Committee to the opinions expressed by the expert witness, Mr Geddes in his report dated 15 July 2025, and submitted that in respect of each individual particular, the Registered Person’s conduct fell far below the standards expected of an Architect.

34. The Presenter submitted that individually and cumulatively the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to UPC.

35. Mr Corrie submitted that when considering UPC, the Committee should consider each particular individually and not cumulatively. He relied upon the judgments in the cases of Schodlok and Ahmedsowida v GMC [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin) in support of his submission. He submitted that these judgments illustrate the following:

i. Findings of misconduct that do not individually amount to serious misconduct should not be accumulated to amount to serious misconduct;
ii. It is impermissible to use existing findings of serious misconduct to elevate a separate finding of non-serious misconduct;
iii. If cumulation is permissible at all it is only in exceptional cases where there are a large number of findings of non-serious misconduct of the same or similar type;
iv. It must be clear from the charges themselves or the way in which the case is advanced that the case is put on a cumulative basis.

36. Mr Corrie submitted that the issue being considered by the High Court in the case of Vranicki was different from this issue to be considered by the Committee in this case. He submitted that in Vranicki, the Court was not considering whether it was permissible to cumulate particulars when considering a charge of UPC or SPI. He submitted that the issue in the case of Vranicki related to whether the admission of a supplementary statement of an expert witness, which had been served late, amounted to a new charge in relation to a finding that there had been Serious Professional Incompetence (“SPI”). Mr Corrie submitted that in Vranicki, Mr Justice Collins held that it was not a new charge and there had been a fundamental mistake as to what amounted to a charge, and where there was a charge of SPI, this permitted accumulating particulars of allegation so as to amount to SPI.

37. Mr Corrie submitted that there was no decision in Vranicki on what should apply in relation to UPC.

38. Mr Corrie submitted that different considerations should apply when considering UPC as opposed to SPI, not least because different tests apply and UPC carries with it a degree of opprobrium. Mr Corrie submitted that the ARB’s published guidance in respect of UPC and SPI also makes clear that for SPI, it is permissible to consider a number of failings that are not serious individually, but taken together, demonstrate a pattern of incompetence. He submitted that there is no similar guidance in relation to UPC.

39. Mr Corrie further submitted that the case of Vranicki was a High Court decision from 2007 whereas Schodlok is a Court of Appeal decision from 2015. He submitted that the decision in Schodlok should therefore take precedence.

40. Mr Corrie submitted that the case of Schodlok addresses the very issue that the Committee is being asked to consider in this hearing in relation to the accumulation of particulars. In response to The Presenter’s submissions, Mr Corrie submitted that the consideration of whether proven conduct amounts to misconduct in a medical regulation setting and the consideration of whether proven conduct amounts to UPC in these proceedings, both involve a retrospective exercise, and it is only the next step of considering current impairment in medical regulation that is forward looking, and therefore it is a false distinction.

41. Mr Corrie submitted that the Committee should therefore apply the Schodlok principles to its consideration of UPC in this case. Mr Corrie submitted that although the five particulars in this case arise from the same project, they are separate, distinct in nature and limited in number. He submitted that they do not meet the exceptional circumstances described in Schodlok. He further submitted that even if they did, it would be unfair for the Committee to adopt the cumulative approach because the ARB had not made it sufficiently clear that it put its case in that way and had not addressed the Schodlok principles.

42. Mr Corrie submitted that it is accepted that the Registered Person’s conduct in particulars 3a, 3b, 4, and 5b, amounted to UPC. However, Mr Corrie submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct in particulars 1a, 1b, and 2 was not sufficiently serious to amount to UPC.

43. Mr Corrie submitted that it was of note that in his expert report, Mr Geddes had opined that the Registered Person’s conduct in particulars 1 and 2 fell below the standard expected. He submitted that in contrast, in relation to particulars 3, 4 and 5, Mr Geddes had concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct fell far below the standard expected. He submitted that it is generally accepted in regulatory proceedings, that when an expert opines that conduct falls below the expected standard it does not amount to misconduct or UPC, whereas when an expert opines that the conduct falls far below the standard expected of the Registered Person then it is sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct or UPC.

44. Mr Corrie submitted that while UPC is a matter for the Committee’s judgement, the Committee should have careful regard to the expert evidence of Mr Geddes which forms the basis of the ARB’s case. He further submitted that although the Presenter had submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct fell far below the standard expected in relation to particulars 1 and 2, this was in direct contradiction of their own expert’s evidence.

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

46. The Committee reminded itself that a finding of UPC is a matter for its own independent judgement having regard to the factual particulars found proved.

47. 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.

48. The Committee also had regard to the guidance published by the ARB ‘What Constitutes UPC and SPI’ in relation to UPC:

“…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.

The conduct complained of 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.”

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

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

50. In this case, the standards required to be followed by the Registered Person are contained in the 2017 version of the Code.

51. The Committee further noted that in accordance with section 13(4) of the Architects Act 1997 and Rule 21 of the Rules, it is required to take into account any failure by the Registered Person to comply with the provisions of the Code when reaching its decision on UPC. However, the Committee recognised that not every shortcoming on the part of an architect, nor failure to comply with the provisions of the Code, will necessarily result in a finding of UPC.

52. The Committee noted that it was confirmed in the case of Vranicki that any failing on the part of the Registered Person must be serious.

53. The Committee had regard to the judgments in the cases of Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317, in which Mr Justice Collins held that “the adjective ‘serious’ must be given its proper weight, and in other contexts there has been reference to conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners.” and Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin) where Mr Justice Irwin held that for a finding of UPC to be made, “a degree of moral blameworthiness on the part of the registrant likely to convey a degree of opprobrium to the ordinary intelligent citizen” is required.

54. The Committee first considered whether it should apply an individual or cumulative approach to the factual particulars when evaluating the Registered Person’s conduct and exercising its judgement to determine if the Registered Person is guilty of UPC.

55. The Committee had regard to the following parts of the judgment in Vranicki:

“[29] … it is said that the late service of the supplementary statement of Sarah Lupton, [an expert instructed by the ARB], was unfair since it raised what essentially amounted to new charges only a few days before the hearing. I think there has been a fundamental misconception of what amounts to a charge. The Rules make it clear that there are potentially only two charges and indeed the Board Solicitor’s report identifies them as (a) that the appellant was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and (b) that she was guilty of serious professional incompetence. That is entirely consistent with Rule 15 of the Investigation Rules
which I have already cited. The allegations that follow, which were wrongly described as individual charges by the PCC, are particulars of the matters which are relied on to substantiate the charges … The PCC had at the end of the case to decide whether either or both of the charges were established by the facts which they found proved on the evidence before them. Although it misdescribed the particulars as charges, it dismissed the charge of unacceptable professional conduct but found proved that of serious professional incompetence.

[30] It follows that the PCC was in my judgment wrong in the sense that it was unnecessary to decide that each individual allegation that they found proved established serious professional incompetence. What they should have done was to consider all the allegations which were found proved to decide whether together they established the charge against the appellant. However, it has been, as it
happens, helpful to see that they considered that each of what they described as Charges (5) and (7) individually justified a finding of serious professional incompetence. This makes all the more clear that if they were considered cumulatively a similar finding would have been made.”

56. The Committee noted that in the case of Vranicki, the charge of UPC had been dismissed by the PCC but that there had been a finding of SPI. The issue raised during the appeal was whether the late service of expert evidence by the ARB a few days prior to the hearing amounted to a new charge of SPI. The Committee noted that the High Court held that it did not amount to a new charge, rather it amounted to a further particular that the PCC should have considered together with the other factual particulars found proved to decide if the charge of SPI was established.

57. The Committee further noted that the ARB’s published guidance on what constitutes SPI specifically states that:

“Serious professional incompetence is a serious failure to meet the required standard of skill expected of a member of the profession undertaking a similar kind of job at the same time. It can relate to something that an architect has or has not done, but an unexpected or unsatisfactory outcome is not in itself proof that an architect has been seriously incompetent.

Because the facts and circumstances of each case are different, it is not possible to identify the exact point where incompetence becomes serious incompetence; however the following features make it more likely to be viewed as serious:

[…]

• Where a number of failings, while not serious individually, together demonstrate a pattern of incompetence
• Where a pattern of incompetence suggests an architect may not act competently in the future.”

58. In the Committee’s view, in relation to an allegation containing a charge of SPI, it is permissible for the Committee, in accordance with the ARB’s guidance, to consider whether the particulars found proved, while not serious individually, when considered cumulatively, demonstrate a pattern of incompetence that is sufficiently serious to amount to SPI.

59. In the Committee’s view, the decision in Vranicki, confirms this established principle in relation to SPI.

60. However, the Committee noted that in Vranicki, the Court was not invited to consider, and did not make a decision on, whether it is permissible to cumulate particulars which individually are not sufficiently serious to amount to UPC but taken together may amount to UPC.

61. The Committee also had regard to the following parts of the judgment in the case of Schodlok. At paragraphs 62 and 63 of the judgment, Lord Justice Vos said:

“62. In these circumstances, I do not think it was open to the Panel in this case to bring in findings of non-serious misconduct in relation to the treatment of staff apart from Mr Marshall to feed its finding that Dr Schodlok’s fitness to practise was impaired…

63. …I do not think that we should opine on the theoretical possibility that, in a particular case on different facts, a series of non-serious misconduct findings could, taken together, be regarded as serious misconduct. For my part, I would not think that the possibility of taking such a course in a very unusual case on very unusual facts should be ruled out, but I would prefer to leave the argument for a case in which such facts were said to arise. In the normal case, I do not think that a few allegations of misconduct that are held individually not to be serious can or should be regarded collectively as serious misconduct…”

62. At paragraph 72 of the judgement, Lord Justice Beatson said:

“72. As to whether a series of non-serious misconduct findings could, when taken together, be regarded as serious misconduct which impairs a doctor’s fitness to practise, I agree with my Lord that, since the question does not fall for decision, the court needs to be very cautious in expressing a view. In paragraph 63 of his judgment, he confines the possibility to “a very unusual case on very unusual facts”. My tentative and very preliminary view is that, provided it is clear from either the charge brought by the GMC or the way the case against the doctor is presented at the hearing, that any adverse findings by the panel on matters identified in the charges might be cumulated in this way, so that the doctor is aware this is a possibility, such an approach should in principle be open to the panel. I recognise that a small number of allegations of misconduct that individually are held not to be serious misconduct should normally not be regarded collectively as serious misconduct. Where, however, there are a large number of findings of non-serious misconduct, particularly where they are of the same or similar misconduct, I consider the position is different. In such a case, it should in principle be open for a Fitness to Practise Panel to find that, cumulatively, they are to be regarded as serious misconduct capable of impairing a doctor’s fitness to practise.”

63. In addition, the Committee had regard to the judgment in the case Ahmedsowida v GMC [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), in which High Court applied the principles from the Court of Appeal case of Schodlok. Mr Justice Kerr said:

“107. To those observations from the Court of Appeal, the tribunal might have shown greater respect than they did. Rightly, they did not attempt to decide the point left open by the Court of Appeal and no more will I. But it is clear that they did not properly understand Schodlok. There was no mention of Beatson LJ’s view being tentative and
very preliminary, as well as (in a minority) less sceptical than that of Vos LJ with whose judgment Moore-Bick LJ agreed.

108. Nor was there any comparison with the factual position in Schodlok; nor any consideration of whether the facts were exceptional here. Nor did the tribunal consider properly whether the GMC had sought as part of its case to cumulate a large number of findings of non-serious misconduct so as to elevate the misconduct to the level of being serious. That was, it seems to me, not the GMC’s case.

109. The tribunal appeared to regard Beatson LJ’s obiter observations as providing them with carte blanche to cumulate charges considered in clusters. That approach is not supported by Schodlok or any other authority cited to me. While the situation is different from that in Oyesanya because, in this case, the concerns were not merely generalised but specified, there was no clear foundation in authority for the cumulation exercise undertaken.

110. I agree with Mr Forde that the tribunal failed to consider whether there was a large number of non-serious misconduct findings making up a series. The charge elevated to serious misconduct (charge 15b) was one in a series of only three. Moreover, the other two (charges 15a and 15c) were not the subject of findings of non- serious misconduct but of serious misconduct. The cluster was too small and the other two components of it were not the right ones.

111. The cumulation exercise, if permissible at all, is supposed to involve the cumulation of non-serious with other non-serious misconduct findings; not of one non- serious misconduct finding with two findings of misconduct that is serious in its own right. In the latter context, there is no good reason to cumulate; the quality of the conduct is already correctly expressed, without the need for any cumulation.

112. In the present case, as in Schodlok, there was no “last straw” as where a series of minor incidents, relatively trivial in themselves, when taken together is too serious to dismiss as not capable of impairing fitness to practise. There was nothing analogous to the series of minor niggling fouls in a football match, eventually cumulated to merit a yellow card, or even ultimately a red one.

113. Wherever the boundary lies between permissible and impermissible cumulation (which I do not attempt to decide), it is clear that the tribunal misapplied Schodlok by wrongly placing this case on the far side of that boundary. It ought not to have elevated charge 15b to the level of serious misconduct. Whether that matters, in the context of the tribunal’s findings overall, I will consider later in this judgment.”

64. In the Committee’s view, whilst the judgment in Vranicki does provide authority for the cumulating of particulars when considering a charge of SPI, it does not support the Presenter’s submission that the Committee should “consider the Registered Person’s conduct in the round” and decide whether the particulars found proved when considered cumulatively amount to UPC. Having considered the judgments in Schodlok and Ahmedsowida, the Committee determined that it should apply the Schodlok principles when deciding whether to consider the particulars individually or cumulatively in relation to its consideration of UPC.

65. Applying the Schodlok principles to this case, the Committee noted that of the five factual particulars found proved:

• Particulars 1a and 1b relate to failings by the Registered Person in respect of his duties as a contract administrator;
• Particular 2 relates to the Registered Person’s failure to complete the liquidated damages section of the Building Contract;
• Particulars 3a and 3b relate to the Registered Person acting as a mediator and his failure to manage a conflict of interest; and
• Particulars 4 and 5, relate to the dishonest facilitation of a cash payment to reduce VAT.

66. The Committee was of the view, that although these matters all arose in relation to the Referrer’s project, each particular is distinct, of a different nature and limited in time. The Committee took into account that this was not a case where a large number of similar non-serious matters have been found proved. The Committee therefore determined that this case did not fall into the very unusual category described in Schodlock. Accordingly, the Committee determined that it would consider each particular individually and not cumulatively.

 

Particulars 1a and 1b

67. The Committee noted that the Registered Person was engaged to act as the contract administrator and clause 51 of the Building Contract states:

“5.1 The Architect/Contract Administrator is not a Party to the Contract but
administers the Contract, issuing instructions and certificates and taking decisions.”

68. The Committee noted that the Building Contract set out construction milestones in the project at which point payments would be made to the Building Contractor provided that the work had been completed to the required standard with a Payment Certificate to be sent by the Registered Person in his capacity of contract administrator confirming this. The Committee further noted that after his visit to the property on 28 March 2023, the Registered Person failed to carry out any subsequent site inspections at the Property and did not issue any Payment Certificates or instructions.

69. The Committee further noted that in the Registered Person’s fee proposal, a fee of £100 plus VAT was payable in respect of each site visit during RIBA Stage 5: Construction and Manufacture. The Committee further noted that in his witness statement, the Registered Person states that:

“The Company’s appointment is typically done in RIBA stages with Stage 5 being when clients typically need assistance. At the time of this project, the Company offered a per site visit fee charged at an hourly rate or per visit. The Company often only does design related work with clients sourcing their own building contractor and managing that relationship on site directly. In such
circumstances, the Company offered contract administration services on a separate basis distinct from its typical architectural fixed fee basis. Typically, the Company can only provide contract administration services by doing site visits and for this the Company needs to be instructed to attend site and at the time of writing the Contract it was understood that the Company would be
continually instructed. After one initial visit the Company was not instructed to attend site enough to be able to undertake contract administration duties fully, at which juncture having the Company named as contract administrator in the Contract was an inaccurate reflection of the project realities and upon reflection, I should have brought this to the Client’s attention and discussed the
implications of this. One possibility I should have discussed was the issuing of a new contract with the Client named as contract administrator. Payments for the Works were made directly by the Client to the Contractor as the Company did not deal with any payment applications or issuing any payment certificates.

I had thought that this provision and the intersection between the Company’s appointment and the building contract were clear and understandable. However, upon reflection I can see why there has been much confusion and where there is a lack of clarity it is on me as the architect and the Company to ensure our clients fully understand the services they have contracted for. It is
clear now that this misunderstanding would have potential ramifications on the Client as it left her on site with the Contractor without my oversight or input. The outcome of this project has clearly been distressing on the Client and it is never my intention for my role to lead to such a result. Since this time our Fee Proposals have been rewritten to clarify this matter as well as further explaining
the services at this juncture.”

70. The Committee also noted the Referrer’s witness statement in which she stated:

“The Registered Person did not issue any payment instructions/certificates at all to me. He had nothing to do with invoices or payments. To be honest, after his behaviour in April 2023 around his failure to admit his part in the confusion regarding the boundary wall, I did not invite him to visit the site again. Those visits in any case were going to be charged to me at £100 plus VAT, and since the 28 March 2023 visit had not avoided a problem with the foundations, I did not see they point in paying for further visits.”

71. The Committee had regard to Mr Geddes’ opinion that “… the Registered Person states that he was not instructed sufficiently to undertake duties as contract administrator. It appears that this situation resulted from a lack of clarity in the documents issued by the Registered Person…” The Committee also noted that Mr Geddes opined that the Registered Person’s conduct fell below, but not far below, the standards expected of an Architect.

72. Having regard to the above evidence, the Committee considered that the Registered Person did not willfully fail to undertake his duties as contract administrator. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s failure to undertake his duties as contract administrator arose (i) as a result of the lack of clarity in the documentation provided by the Registered Person to the Referrer, which did not make it clear that she was required to continually instruct him, and (ii) as a result of him not explicitly bringing to the Referrer’s attention that if she did not instruct him to undertake site visits at each of the construction milestones, he could not fulfil his duties as contract administrator.

73. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s failings left the Referrer in a vulnerable position without the support she should have been provided with, and were contrary to Standard 6.3 of the Code, which states:

6.3 You are expected to keep your client informed of the progress of work you undertake on their behalf and of any issue which may significantly affect its quality or cost.

74. Taking all the above into consideration, and in particular, the circumstances in which the Registered Person’s failings occurred, the Committee considered that although the Registered Person’s conduct fell short of the standard expected of an Architect, it was not sufficiently serious to be ‘regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners’ and that there was not a ‘degree of moral blameworthiness on the part of the Registered Person likely to convey a degree of opprobrium to the ordinary intelligent citizen’.

75. The Committee therefore determined that the Registered Person’s conduct in particulars 1a and 1b did not amount to UPC.

 

Particular 2

76. The Committee noted the opinion of Mr Geddes “that the RIBA Domestic Building Contract 2018 used by the Registered Person was an adequate form of building contract. It is intended for use on domestic renovation and extension projects, so it was appropriate for the Registered Person to select it.” The Committee was therefore satisfied that the Registered Person had selected the appropriate form of contract.

77. However, the Committee noted that when the Registered Person completed the Building Contract, the box relating to liquidated damages was left blank meaning that it was zero rated.

78. The Committee noted the evidence of Mr Geddes that the Registered Person’s failure removed a level of protection from the Referrer who, as a consequence, was not automatically entitled to payment from the Building Contractor in the event of late completion of the works.

79. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person failure to adequately complete the building contract was contrary to Standards 6.1 and 6.4 of the Code, which state:

6.1 You are expected to carry out your work with skill and care and in accordance with the terms of your engagement.

6.4 You should, when acting between parties or giving advice, exercise impartial
and independent professional judgment.

80. The Committee had regard to Mr Geddes’ opinion that Registered Person’s conduct fell below, but not far below, the standards expected of an Architect.

81. The Committee noted that in his witness statement, the Registered Person states:

“Upon on reflection I should have had further discussions about it with the Client to ensure she fully understood the implications of there being no provision and what financial impact the lateness of this project may have on her. As it stood at the end of the project the client had a long list of additional costs incurred by the overrun of the build, and the stress that this had upon the Client. Had a provision been made at the start of the Contract for these to further protect the client’s financial interest, the secondary knock on of this is to motivate the Contractor to complete the works in a timely manner; something which later also caused distress to the Client.

I accept that there should have been a provision for liquidated damages to protect the Client in such a scenario. Since this project, the Company ensures that there is a LD provision included in contracts…”

82. Having regard to the above, the Committee considered that the Registered Person’s omission to complete the liquidated damages box in the Building Contract fell short of the standard expected by an Architect. However, the Committee determined that the omission was not so serious as to amount to UPC.

 

Particulars 3a and 3b

83. The Committee noted the evidence of Mr Geddes:

“It is my opinion that if the Registered Person was offering professional mediation services then he had to be competent to do so, as required by Standard 2.1 of the Code. That being the case, he ought to have understood that a mediator must be completely impartial and neutral in all respects. An architect cannot objectively act as a mediator in respect of a dispute in which they are intimately involved, as the Registered Person did in this case.

Standard 6.4 of the Code requires an architect, when acting between parties, to exercise impartial judgement. In my opinion, this applies to architects acting as mediators as the role demands impartiality. Where it is not possible to do so, for example due to a conflict of interest, the architect must disclose this in writing and seek informed consent before continuing to act in accordance with Standard 1.3 of the Code. In this case the Registered Person acted as mediator without disclosing an obvious conflict of interest to the Referrer (and presumably the Building Contractor as well).

For the reasons noted above, it is my opinion that this is a breach of the Code that falls far below the standards expected of an architect.

Notwithstanding the above, it appears that the Registered Person was unfamiliar with
what the role of mediator actually entailed. A mediator helps the parties to find a settlement arrangement to which they can both agree without expressing any views on the merits of the respective arguments. By contrast, the Registered Person’s Mediation Report expressly refers to “the opinion of the mediator” on contractual matters. In my opinion this is highly inappropriate and suggests that the Registered Person was not professionally competent to act in this capacity, contrary to Standard 2.1 of the Code.”

84. The Committee also noted that in his witness statement, the Registered Person states:

“I personally had not done any mediations like this before, but had seen it undertaken by previous colleagues. At the time I thought I was best placed to assist the resolution of a dispute and included the Company as the mediator in the Contract. In hindsight, it is clear that acting as architect, contract administrator and mediator would inherently create a conflict of interest, such that I should never have placed the Company as the mediator in the Contract.”

85. Having regard to the above, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s conduct was contrary to Standards 1.3, 2.1, and 6.4 of the Code, which state:

1.3 Where a conflict of interest arises you are expected to disclose it in writing and manage it to the satisfaction of all affected parties. You should seek written confirmation that all parties involved give their informed consent to your continuing to act. Where this consent is not received you should cease acting for one or more of the parties.

2.1 You are expected to be competent to carry out the professional work you undertake to do, and if you engage others to do that work they should be competent and adequately supervised.

6.4 You should, when acting between parties or giving advice, exercise impartial and independent professional judgment.

86. The Committee determined these to be serious matters that fell far below the standards expected of an Architect and amounted to UPC.

 

Particulars 4 and 5b

87. The Committee noted that as part of the tender process, the Registered Person forwarded the Building Contractor’s tender to the Referrer knowing that it included a £10,000 cash payment to “further reduce the cost of the build”.

88. The Committee further noted that in his witness statement, the Registered Person states:

“Whilst I did point out to the client that the Contractor was now the cheapest by going with the cash payment, I did also specifically advise against a cash payments primarily owing to difficulty tracing such payments and it being more of a trust exercise.

The Client said she was happy with the cash payment as she has previously dealt with builders like this in the past. While I sought to protect the Client’s payment by writing it into the Contract, in hindsight, I should not have presented it as an option for the Client to consider. While I did not force the Client down this route, I equally did not attempt to stop her. I am aware and was aware at
the time that one reason why a cash payment may have been offered by the Contractor was to circumvent payment of VAT. Whilst the Contractor never explicitly said to me that it would be avoiding paying VAT on this project, I appreciate that by such cash payment making it the cheapest option that I should have questioned this further and/or advised the Client not to proceed with the Contractor on this basis.”

89. The Committee noted that the Registered Person did advise the Referrer against proceeding with a cash payment and that he did not seek to conceal it. On the contrary, he recorded that there should be a £10,000 payment in the Building Contract as the last construction milestone payment to provide some protection to the Referrer. The Committee also noted that there is no evidence that the Registered Person benefitted from the arrangement for the Referrer to pay the Building Contractor £10,000 in cash. However, the Committee also noted that the Registered Person has accepted that at the material time, he was aware that one reason for the cash payment was to circumvent the payment of VAT and has admitted that by facilitating and agreeing to the cash payment by the Referrer to the Building Contractor, he acted dishonestly. In the Committee’s view, by allowing the Building Contractor to include a cash payment in exchange for a price reduction, this allowed the Building Contractor to gain a financial advantage over the others in that he had failed to exercise impartial professional judgement.

90. The Committee had regard to the opinion of Mr Geddes that the Registered Person’s conduct fell far below the standards expected.

91. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s conduct was contrary to Standards 1.1 and 6.4 of the Code, which state:

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.

6.4 You should, when acting between parties or giving advice, exercise impartial and independent professional judgment.

92. In the Committee’s view the Registered Person’s conduct fell far below the standards expected of an Architect and was sufficiently serious to amount to UPC.

93. For the reasons set out above, the Committee therefore found that the Registered Person is guilty of UPC.

 

Decision on Sanction

94. Having found the Registered Person guilty of UPC, the Committee next considered what, if any, sanction to impose in this case.

95. The Registered Person gave evidence to the Committee at this stage of the hearing.

96. The Registered Person adopted the content of his witness statement dated 17 April 2026.

97. The Registered Person told the Committee that when the Referrer instructed him in relation to this project he was not registered as an Architect with the ARB. He became registered during the project, and it was one of the first he had worked on as an ARB registered Architect. He explained that he is Director and Principal of the Company which employs 5 people including his wife, another architect, and three individuals undertaking their training (including an apprentice) to become architects. He stated that the Company’s projects are largely residential in nature, ranging from small extensions to new builds. He told the Committee that the Company typically has 50-60 active projects.

98. The Registered Person was asked about his previous experience in contract administration, he explained that this was limited. He told the Committee that at the time he had been working for six and a half years, and during this time he had two and a half years observed experience of contract administration in former employment. He was also asked about his previous experience as a mediator, and he told the Committee that he had never previously acted as a mediator. He stated that he had previously observed others undertaking what he considered to the role of a mediator, although upon reflection, he now understood that those individuals may not have been appointed as mediators.

99. The Registered Person told the Committee that being an Architect means everything to him and that his “life revolves around it in all aspects”. He explained that he had aspired to become an Architect since his school days. He told the Committee that his approach to his role as an Architect is to do as “much as humanly possible” and to “give the client everything they need with as little stress on them as possible”.

100. The Registered Person told the Committee that he wished to express his apologies to the Referrer, the ARB and the profession for falling short of what was expected of him. He explained that this process has highlighted to him a number of areas of his practice that needed to be addressed and that he has reflected and acted upon this in the hope it will never happen again.

101. The Registered Person explained to the Committee how he has changed his practice. In respect of contract administration and filling in the relevant sections of building contracts, he referred the Committee to examples of the Company’s new paperwork including fee proposals and completed contracts demonstrating that he has addressed his failings. He told the Committee that at the time he named the Company as mediator in the contract between the Referrer and the Building Contractor, he had not identified the obvious conflict of interest in him undertaking the role. He explained that having undertaken relevant training and CPD he now understood how he could not have been impartial and that accordingly the parties did not get the mediation process they expected. He stated that it is now, and will continue to be, his practice to name the RIBA mediation service as mediator in building contracts. The Registered Person also told the Committee that as a result of his learning, he now better understood the potential for conflicts of interest to arise across his practice. He stated that if such a situation arose in the future, he would immediately notify everyone involved, obtain written consent to either proceed or not proceed, and identify appropriate steps moving forward.

102. The Registered Person was asked about particulars 4 and 5b. He told the Committee that during the tendering process, the first round of quotes for the works were not within the Referrer’s planned budget. He explained that due to the price sensitivity, the scope of the works was reduced in order to reduce costs. He told the Committee that a second round of quotes were obtained, and the second quote provided by the Building Contractor included the proposed cash payment of £10,000. He told the Committee that he did not ask the Building Contractor to do this, and the Building Contractor did not explicitly tell him it was to avoid the Referrer paying VAT, although he was aware at the time that one of the reasons for including a cash payment would have been to avoid paying VAT and lower the costs of the project. He told the Committee that he did not benefit from this in any way. He accepted that even though he warned the Referrer against accepting a quote including a cash payment, he should not have forwarded the quote to her. He told the Committee that his only motivation had been “to seek the lowest possible cost the client could afford”. He told the Committee that he had not attempted to conceal the arrangement and had included the payment of £10,000 in the contract in order to provide the Referrer with a degree of protection.

103. The Registered Person told the Committee that he accepted that his conduct was dishonest and completely unacceptable. He stated that he understood that acting with honesty and integrity is integral to maintaining public confidence in the profession. He was asked about the effect of his conduct on the Referrer and on the public. He told the Committee that his conduct would have “cast doubt and shown the profession in a non-positive light” and that neither the Referrer nor the public would expect a registered member of the ARB would conduct themselves in this way. He accepted that his actions fell short of the standards expected of him and are capable of bringing the profession into disrepute. He told the Committee that he has never acted dishonestly before or since this matter and would never do so in the future. He stated:

“I feel embarrassed. It’s devastating. I always want to do what’s best for everyone involved, the client, yourself, the public; to be seen at all times to be professional and upholding the Code. In this case, I fell short and that’s heart breaking… it has taken time to build back confidence in myself, the general public, and everyone in the profession that understands the ramifications of what’s happened in this case… I would like to offer my sincere apology for the way this has come about and my conduct that has led to this point. I hope that the steps I am taking now are at least in the right direction to better myself and to prove that progress has been made to bring things back in line, and to ensure that this never happens again”.

104. The Committee next heard submissions from both counsel.

105. The Presenter referred the Committee to the relevant parts of the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance (2022) published by the ARB (“the Sanctions Guidance”). She submitted that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was a matter for the Committee.

106. Mr Corrie referred the Committee to the Registered Person’s evidence and to the documentary evidence contained in the Registered Person’s Defence Bundle. He submitted that the guidance contained in the Sanctions Guidance amounts to guidelines and that the decision in respect of what sanction to impose is a matter for the Committee. He submitted that the Committee should have regard to the principle of proportionality.

107. Mr Corrie submitted that this is a case where the Committee can be satisfied that there is no risk of repetition by the Registered Person of the conduct which led to the finding of UPC, and that therefore a sanction was not required to protect members of the public.

108. Mr Corrie submitted that in the circumstances of this case, the purpose of the sanction will be to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold professional standards. He submitted that the Committee should impose the least onerous sanction that would achieve that purpose.

109. Mr Corrie referred the Committee to the relevant part of the Sanctions Guidance. He submitted that the appropriate sanction in this case is a financial penalty order. He submitted that if allowed payment terms, the Registered Person would be able to pay such an order. He submitted that if the Committee was against his primary submission, then it should consider imposing a suspension order for a period of four to six months.

110. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to all the evidence provided to it and took into account the submissions made by the Presenter and Mr Corrie.

111. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to the Sanctions Guidance but exercised its own independent judgement.

112. The Committee reminded itself that the purpose of a sanction in these proceedings is threefold, to protect members of the public, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and competence. The Committee has borne in mind that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to punish the Registered Person, although it acknowledged that it may have a punitive effect.

113. The Committee acknowledged that the imposition of a sanction may have a significant impact upon the registered person, both in terms of his professional reputation and in financial terms. The Committee applied the principle that it must act proportionately and recognised that its interference with the Registered Person’s right to practise whilst using the title ‘architect’ must be no more than necessary to achieve the PCC’s purpose of protecting the public and upholding public confidence in the profession and proper standards.

114. The Committee noted that the Act does not require the Committee to impose a sanction in every case where a guilty finding is reached The Committee may therefore decide to impose no sanction. If it decides to impose a sanction, then the sanctions available to the Committee are:

i. A Reprimand;
ii. A Penalty Order (a maximum financial penalty of £2,500);
iii. A Suspension Order (for a maximum of two years); and
iv. Erasure from the ARB Register.

115. In accordance with the approach set out in the Sanctions Guidance, the Committee first considered the seriousness of the case.

116. The Committee identified the following aggravating factor:

• A finding of dishonesty against the Registered Person.

117. The Committee identified the following mitigating factors:

i. The Registered Person’s conduct represented isolated failings in respect of a single project in an otherwise unblemished career;
ii. The Registered Person has reflected on his conduct and demonstrated a good level of insight in relation to the impact of his conduct on the Referrer, the public, and the profession;
iii. The Registered Person has shown genuine remorse;
iv. The Registered Person has apologised for his conduct;
v. The Registered Person has taken remedial action to prevent repetition. This includes reflection and developing a good level of insight, undertaking relevant training, and making appropriate changes to his practice;
vi. The Registered Person’s previous good character. The Registered Person has no previous regulatory findings against him;
vii. The Committee was provided with numerous positive references and testimonials; and
viii. The Registered Person made open and frank admissions at an early stage.

118. Given that this case involves a finding of dishonesty against the Registered Person, the Committee took into consideration the Sanctions Guidance on dishonesty. The Committee recognised that a finding of dishonesty is always a serious matter. It noted that the Code states that architects must always act with honesty and integrity. This is a fundamental tenet of the profession and underpins the trust the public places in the profession. However, the Committee recognised that dishonesty may take many forms, some more serious than others. The Committee therefore considered the nature and context of the dishonesty in order to determine where it fell on the spectrum.

119. The Committee noted that paragraph 8.3 of the Sanctions Guidance provides examples of dishonest conduct generally considered to be more serious. The Committee determined that none of these applied to the Registered Person’s dishonesty.

120. The Committee identified the following factors that it considered relevant to assessing the seriousness of the Registered Person’s dishonesty:

i. The Registered Person did not ask the Building Contractor to include a £10,000 cash payment in his second quote;
ii. The Registered Person did not benefit from the inclusion of the £10,000 cash payment;
iii. The Registered Person’s dishonesty was not motivated by any personal gain. It occurred in the context of a wholly misconceived reduction in costs payable by the Referrer.
iv. The Registered Person was aware that the reason for the inclusion of the cash payment in the quote was to reduce costs by the non-payment of VAT by the Building Contractor;
v. The Registered Person advised the Referrer by email against accepting the quote including the cash payment;
vi. The Registered Person did not attempt to conceal the £10,000 cash payment. He included a payment of £10,000 in the Building Contract in order to provide a degree of protection to the Referrer; and
vii. The Registered Person’s dishonesty was an isolated incident.

121. Taking all of these matters into account, the Committee determined that the Registered Person’s dishonesty was at the bottom end of the spectrum of dishonesty.

122. The Committee next weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors it had identified. In so doing it balanced the finding of dishonesty, which it had determined was at the bottom end of the spectrum, against the mitigating factors. The Committee was mindful of the guidance contained in paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of the Sanctions Guidance:

“5.7 The PCC should take account evidence of both insight and remediation – that is, whether the architect has demonstrated an accurate and full understanding of their failings and whether they have taken steps to set things right. They may have taken steps to remedy the issues which led to the complaint, or taken steps to improve their future practice, or both.

5.8 The PCC should focus on whether there is real evidence that the architect has been able to look back at their conduct with a self-critical eye and that they have acknowledged fault, expressed contrition and/or apologised. It should consider whether the architect has truly understood their failings, any underlying reasons for them, and the impact their actions had. In effect, they need to demonstrate to the PCC that there is a real reason to believe they have learned a lesson from the experience.

123. In this case, the Committee determined that the Registered Person has demonstrated that he has reflected on his conduct with a self-critical eye and acknowledged his failings. He has made open and frank admissions in these proceedings, expressed genuine remorse, and has apologised for his conduct.

124. The Committee noted that the Registered Person has undertaken relevant training and CPD and evidenced how he has used that training to change his practice to avoid repetition of the conduct which led to the finding of UPC. The Registered Person has provided the Committee with evidence that he has undertaken 74 separate CPD activities between December 2024 and January 2025. The Committee noted that of these, 15 activities would seem relevant in addressing the shortcomings of the Registered Person, namely:

• RIBA Contracts Part 1: Why do we need forms of appointment?
• RIBA Contracts Part 2: What should a form of appointment contain?
• RIBA Contracts Part 3: How do you ensure a fair and balanced contract?
• RIBA Contracts Part 4: What are an architect’s main responsibilities in a form of appointment?
• RIBA Contracts Part 5: How do you set out fees?
• RIBA Contracts Part 6: Liabilities and the RIBA Professional Services Contracts
• RIBA Contracts Part 7: What if something goes wrong?
• Ethical Practice Video Series
• Ep 151: Starting a Business
• RIBA Ethical Practice Guide
• Building Contracts and Contract Administration for Architects
• The RIBA Fee Calculator
• Small Practice
• The RIBA Professional Conduct System: Codes and Procedures
• In conversation with: Building Contracts and Contract Administration for Architects

125. The Committee considered that the Registered Person has learned a lesson from this experience and that he has developed a good level of insight in respect of the impact of his conduct on the Referrer, the public and the profession.

126. The Committee was impressed by the testimonials provided on behalf of the Registered Person and noted the following in particular:

“AR – Architect
I have known Mr. Wontner-Smith for approximately 14 years, both in a professional and personal capacity. Professionally, I have known him as a colleague at PWS Architecture and Design Ltd. where I was employed as an architectural designer and Mr. Wontner-Smith was the managing director.”
[….]
“Regarding honesty and integrity, it is my firm view that Mr Wontner-Smith is a person of good character. In both my professional and personal opinion of him, I consider him to be truthful, open, and principled. He has consistently acted in a way that demonstrates integrity and a genuine desire to do the right thing.”

DS – MD of a Roofing firm
“I have known Mr Wontner-Smith now for almost three years and have worked with him on numerous projects in multiple capacities. From new renovation projects through to remedial work, every dealing I have with Phil, I have witnessed true professionalism and with an eye for detail, but more importantly, integrity.
My main business operations are to work directly with the customer. I choose not to operate as a sub-contractor for principal contractors. Mr Wontner-Smith is one of only two people I work with as a sub-contractor due to the alignment of our standards and ethics. Not once has Phil shied away from making a difficult situation, conversation or scenario to take the easier route. He has always stood firm on doing what is right”.
[….]
“Having seen the allegations, I can honestly say that they do not seem to represent Mr Wontner Smith in the way I know him and have observed him operate.”

Mr I – Architect and university lecturer; known since 2017
“… I consider the matters raised to be out of character when set against Mr Wontner-Smith’s established professional record, values and conduct over many years. I would strongly support the view that this situation represents a learning opportunity for Mr Wontner-Smith…. In my opinion, Mr Wontner-Smith is a capable, committed and fundamentally honest architect. He contributes positively to the profession and to the communities he serves and there is a clear public interest in his continued practice as a registered architect, subject to appropriate learning and reflection where necessary.”

127. Balancing all these matters, the Committee considered that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factor in this case and determined that this case falls towards the lower end of the scale of seriousness of cases involving both a conflict of interest and dishonesty.

128. The Committee next considered whether this was an appropriate case for it to impose no sanction. The Committee was satisfied that as a result of the Registered Person’s insight and remediation, it is highly unlikely that the conduct which led to the finding of UPC would be repeated. Accordingly, the Committee determined that a sanction is not required to protect members of the public. However, given the Committee’s findings that the Registered Person’s conduct fell far below the standards required and breached Standards 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, and 6.4 of the Code, the Committee determined that a sanction is required to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold professional standards.

129. The Committee therefore considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

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

131. The Committee therefore went on to consider the imposition of a Penalty Order. The Committee had regard to the non-exhaustive list of factors identified at paragraph 6.3.2 of the Sanctions Guidance as to when this may be an appropriate sanction:

i. The failings found are too serious to warrant a reprimand;
ii. There is evidence of limited insight or remorse;
iii. The architect has benefitted financially from the conduct;
iv. The architect and/or their practice have sufficient financial resources.

132. Applying these factors to this case, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s failings are too serious to warrant a Reprimand, the Registered Person has demonstrated good insight and genuine remorse and has sufficient financial resources to pay a Penalty Order.

133. The Committee decided that in the particular circumstances of this case, a Penalty Order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account its previous finding that the risk of repetition of the UPC in this case was low and therefore the purpose of the sanction in this case was not to protect the public but to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. In the Committee’s view, a well-informed member of the public, aware of all the relevant facts in this case, would consider a Penalty Order to be an appropriate and proportionate sanction, and would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession. Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that the imposition of a Penalty Order would be a sufficient sanction to declare and uphold standards within the profession. The Committee was therefore satisfied that a Penalty Order would meet those public interest requirements.

134. The Committee noted that its powers are currently limited to a maximum fine of £2,500. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that given the seriousness of this case, it would be appropriate and proportionate to impose a Penalty Order for the maximum amount permitted.

135. In reaching this decision, the Committee gave very careful consideration to the imposition of a Suspension Order. The Committee’s decision was finely balanced, however, having regard to the Committee’s finding that the Registered Person’s dishonesty was towards the bottom end of the spectrum, the extensive mitigation presented by the Registered Person, including his insight and remediation, and the potential impact on others employed by the Company, including three individuals training to be architects (including an apprentice), the Committee was persuaded that it would be disproportionate to impose a Suspension Order in his case.

136. The Committee therefore imposes a Penalty Order in the sum of £2,500.