Mr Pol Gallagher

 THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of
POL MARTIN GALLAGHER (083098D)
Held as a video conference
On 24 to 28 March 2025 and 16 April 2025
———-
Present
Sean Hammond (Committee Chair)
Deborah Kirk (Committee Architect Member)
Alastair Cannon (Committee Lay Member)
———–

In this case, the ARB was represented by Ms Calla Randall, (“the Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Mr Pol Gallagher (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was not represented.

In this case, the ARB was represented by Ms Calla Randall, (“the Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Mr Pol Gallagher (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was not represented.

 

 

Allegation

1. The allegation against the Registered Person, is that he is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct (“UPC”).

2. The particulars relied upon by the ARB in support of the allegation are as follows:

1) In respect of Project A, the Registered Person failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he:

(a) Failed to submit the planning application for Project A in a timely manner; and/or
(b) Did not take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project A; and/or
(c) Did not keep Referrer 1 adequately informed about the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project A.

2) In respect of Project B, the Registered Person:

(a) Did not provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code;
(b) Failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he:

(i) Failed to submit the planning application for Project B in a timely manner; and/or
(ii) Did not take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project B; and/or
(iii) Did not keep Referrer 2 adequately informed about the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project B.

 

Background

3. The background circumstances, as set out below, are based on the report dated 14 November 2023 prepared by Kingsley Napley, the witness statements of Ms Kate Gledhill (“Referrer 1”), Ms Tracey Anderson (“Referrer 2”), Mr Matthew Harding, Ms Lily Matthews-Cook, and the documentary exhibits produced by the witnesses.

4. The Registered Person is a registered architect and owner and founder of his own company, ZAP Architecture Limited (“ZAP”).

5. The allegation arises from two complaints to the ARB made by Referrer 1 and Referrer 2.

6. The two referrers have been close friends for many years.

7. Referrer 1 recommended the Registered Person’s services to Referrer 2 at an early stage of her project.

Project A – Complaint by Referrer 1

8. In March 2021, Referrer 1 engaged the Registered Person to design a loft conversion and submit the plans for planning approval in relation to her home, Property A. Following a meeting with Referrer 1 on 25 March 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 1 on the following day with ZAP’s proposals for the project. On 23 May 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 1 attaching his proposed design. Referrer 1 approved this on 24 May 2021. On 14 June 2021, the Registered Person informed Referrer 1 that the planning application had been submitted. He advised Referrer 1 that Haringey Council (“the Council”) were behind on some applications.

9. On 24 August 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 1 and advised her that the Council remained ‘extremely behind on most applications’ and that he would continue to keep chasing them.

10. Referrer 1 next received an email from the Registered Person on 4 January 2022, again advising her that he was still chasing the planning department and that he would advise her as soon as he had a ‘solid reaction’.

11. Referrer 1 emailed the Registered Person requesting an update, on 27 January 2022 and 7 March 2022. She did not receive a response to either email. Referrer 1 emailed the Registered Person again on 14 June 2022. The Registered Person replied on 15 June explaining that he was doing his ‘weekly check today’ and that he would update her ‘once I speak with someone in the planning department today.’ Referrer 1 did not receive an update from the Registered Person.

12. Referrer 1 sent a further email to the Registered Person on 27 July 2022. She did not receive a response. In her witness statement, Referrer 1 stated that she had also attempted to contact the Registered Person by telephone in order to obtain an update from him but that her calls were unanswered.

13. On 22 August 2022, Referrer 1 contacted the Council directly and was informed that they had no record of a planning application in respect of Property A. On the same date, Referrer 1 emailed the Registered Person informing him of this and requesting an explanation. The Registered Person replied on 23 August 2022 advising that he would get to the bottom of what had happened as soon as possible.

14. On 26 August 2022, having not received any further update from the Registered Person, Referrer 1 sent a further email, requesting that he get in touch as a matter of urgency. The Registered Person sent Referrer 1 a series of emails on 26 August 2022, in which he explained that ZAP had submitted Referrer 1’s application online through the digital planning portal following the usual process, but that he had been advised by the Council that there was an issue with the digital planning portal and that he should contact the digital planning portal team. The Registered Person stated that: “I feel a bit silly being fobbed off being told to ‘be patient’ every couple of months when I chased this over the phone…I’m very sorry about this and happy to forfeit any fees”.

15. On 3 September 2022, Referrer 1 sent an email to the Registered Person requesting an update. The Registered Person replied on 7 September 2022 stating that he had received answers from the planning portal that morning. He advised that conventionally ZAP always upload and submit all planning documents to the planning portal who in turn submit all documents to the appropriate borough council. He stated: “they didn’t pass on all the relevant documents or log the application with Haringey – this is extremely frustrating as I feel we did everything as normal / professionally and didn’t receive any correspondence other than “be patient” when we pressed them for updates.” He confirmed he had been given a planning portal number of PP-11507576 and Council application number 20222193. The planning application had been received by the Council on 26 August 2022.

16. On 26 September 2022, Referrer 1 emailed the Registered Person stating: “…Can I ask that you now forward to me and to Tracey any evidence that you have that you submitted the plans last year. I believe you would have received email confirmation from the portal of receipt and notification of which local authority they have been lodged with and also email from Haringey confirming receipt and providing reference number and likely timescale for a decision. I am assuming you have those documents from 2021 for both addresses.” The Registered Person responded on the same date, advising that he had submitted the planning application and that he had a “paper trail showing what was carried out and when”.

17. On 3 October 2022, Referrer 1 emailed the Registered Person requesting copies of the emails received from both the Planning Portal and the Council in 2021 that led him to believe the applications had been received and accepted. Referrer 1 advised that if she did not have confirmation of those items by the end of the week, she would make a complaint to the Royal Institute of British Architects.

18. On 25 October 2022, the Registered Person advised Referrer 1 that her application was being recommended for approval and that he was following the same process for Referrer 2’s application. He apologised for the length of time it had taken for her application to be decided upon. He did not respond to Referrer 1’s request for evidence that had led him to believe her planning application had been submitted in 2021.

19. On 26 October 2022, the Registered Person confirmed that Referrer 1’s planning application had been approved by the Council. The Notice of Planning Permission stated that the application was received by the Council on 26 August 2022.

20. Referrer 1 submitted her complaint to the ARB on 13 October 2022.

Project B – Complaint by Referrer 2

21. On 29 March 2021, Referrer 2 approached the Registered Person in relation to the
design and submission of a planning application for a ground floor wet room and rear extension for her home address, Property B.

22. On 3 April 2021, the Registered Person met Referrer 2 at Property B to discuss the project. They discussed timescales and Referrer 2 explained that she wanted the work to be completed by 2022.

23. After the meeting, Referrer 2 confirmed in her witness statement that she did not hear from the Registered Person for a few weeks, but in May 2021, she found out from Referrer 1, who asked the Registered Person on her behalf, that he had sent her an email about costings. Referrer 2 stated that she never received this email.

24. On 4 May 2022, Referrer 2 emailed the Registered Person stating: “Thank you for letting me know that you had sent the information previously. I don’t know what happened but I have not been able to locate it on my computer… Please whatever you send me if you can cc Kate, then I know I will get it. I may have to change my email addresses as am concerned that I did not get your previous email about costings…”

25. On 11 May 2021, the Registered Person replied to Referrer 2 by email, stating: “… I’ve gotten Elif, the office manager to put a fee proposal together. This is attached. Its usually 50% upfront before we begin the job and then 50% on the date we submit the finalised plans to the borough council. Attached is the fee proposal and some documents on engaging an architect…” Referrer 2 responded on 12 May 2021, providing confirmation of the Registered Person’s appointment. Referrer 2 requested that Referrer 1 be copied into future correspondence as she was experiencing difficulties in receiving the Registered Person’s emails.

26. On 15 May 2021, the Registered Person visited the property to take measurements. On 23 May 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 2 providing three different design options. On 27 May 2021 a meeting took place, followed by the Registered Person sending through an updated design pack. Referrer 2 responded on the same date advising of her favoured design. A further meeting was held on 29 May 2021 with a view to finalising the design.

27. On 13 June 2021, Referrer 2 emailed the Registered Person seeking an update on the status of her planning application. He responded on 14 June 2021 advising that he had “submitted for planning”, and that they “should hear from the council this week with request for planning fee £240 and receipt of being validated etc”. He also informed Referrer 2 that – “I imagine we’ll be behind schedule as all my other planning applications are delayed with Council Covid excuses. Hopefully not. I’ll keep you updated or everything as I go or hear more. I’m trying to get through this morning but so far no pick up from planners.”

28. On 24 August 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 2 advising her that the Council were experiencing delays due to Covid. Referrer 2 confirms in her witness statement that she did not chase the Registered Person for an update on the status of her planning application as she knew from Referrer 1 that her application had not progressed and so she presumed it was the same position in respect of her application.

29. Referrer 2 confirmed in her witness statement that by September 2022 she had become frustrated by the delay. She stated that she had not heard from the Registered Person since 24 August 2021, and that she had heard from Referrer 1 that her application had been delayed due to issues with the planning portal. Referrer 2 therefore emailed the Planning Department at the Council on 24 September 2022. Referrer 2 stated that she also phoned the Council and was informed that they had no record of her application. Referrer 2 received an email response from the Council on 26 September 2022 and was advised that there was no record of any planning application submitted in relation to her address on either the planning database or the planning portal’s list of applications. The Registered Person was copied into this correspondence and replied suggesting that this issue must be due to a similar upload issue he had encountered with another application. He advised Referrer 2 that he would be “in touch asap this week with resolution”.

30. On 7 October 2022, Referrer 2 emailed the Registered Person to ask that he resubmit the plans to the Council. She had not heard from him since his email of 26 September 2022. Referrer 2 was desperate to get her application submitted due to her personal family circumstances.

31. On 10 October 2022, the Registered Person confirmed he was trying to resolve the submission of the planning application as quickly as possible. Referrer 2 responded on the same date requesting the Registered Person to confirm that her planning application had been submitted. She also asked for the planning application reference number. The Registered Person did not respond.

32. On 18 October 2022 Referrer 2 sent a further email to the Registered Person stating that she had still not heard from him in respect of the planning application number. She stated that she felt “totally let down by [the Registered Person’s] lack of contact”. The Registered Person replied on the same day, offering to reimburse her fees, commenting that- “this is a planning portal issue as far as I can see ‐ but I understand you put your trust in me to manage this”. Within the same email, the Registered Person confirmed he would provide proof of his correspondence with the Council regarding his attempts at resolving the delays regarding the planning application. The Registered Person did not do so.

33. On 22 November 2022, Referrer 2 submitted her complaint to the ARB.

34. On 11 April 2023, the Council notified Referrer 2 that planning permission had been granted in relation to the planning application submitted by the Registered Person. The Notice of Planning Permission stated that the planning application was received by the Council on 20 January 2023.

 

 

The Registered Person’s Response

Response in respect of Project A – Complaint by Referrer 1

35. The Registered Person provided his initial representations to the ARB on 17 March 2023 and further representations on 25 May 2023.

36. In his initial representations, the Registered Person stated that ZAP worked hard for 5-6 weeks assembling all the information necessary planning documents for submission on the digital planning portal. He stated that the drawings and designs were created in a timely and professional manner. He stated that the planning application was submitted through the digital portal in the usual manner.

37. The Registered Person stated that the application received a full planning approval without any compromise on 26 October 2022.

38. He stated that the planning officer, Ms B-G, with whom he had correspondence, albeit late in the process had offered a written apology at how slow the application was to the decision date. He provided an email from Ms B-G dated 25 October 2022, in which she stated: “Please accept my apologies for the delays in determining the above planning application. Having reviewed the submitted application, I am recommending it for approval. However, I will need you to confirm and agree to an Extension of Time (EOT) until 26 October 2022. This would allow for sufficient time to issue the decision notice.”

39. The Registered Person stated that ZAP had waited on average between 13-17 months for a simple residential extension approval from the Council over the last three applications. He provided examples of written apologies from the Council in respect of these three applications.

40. The Registered Person explained that as an experienced Architect, he had waited two weeks before contacting the Council as he was aware from previous applications that it often took 1-2 weeks to validate applications and that Covid was also slowing things down at that time. He stated that he had chased the Council for an update on numerous occasions by telephone but that this had been a frustrating process as he had repeatedly been kept on hold for extended periods and often there was nobody available to speak to. He stated that when he did manage to speak to someone, he was always told to be patient. He stated that he was also told that the Council was changing their systems and computer systems and that he had been told by duty planners that these changes had caused problems with applications.

41. The Registered Person acknowledged that he could have been more aggressive in demanding answers but that he did not wish to upset the planning authority who would be making a decision on the proposal. He stated that in an attempt to mitigate the delay for Referrer 1, he invited two building contractors to meet with Referrer 1 to possibly speed up the process once planning was granted.

42. The Registered Person stated that he empathised with the frustration caused by the delay to Referrer 1 and that had offered to refund his professional fees as a gesture of goodwill even though the delay was not the fault of ZAP.

43. In his further representations dated 25 May 2023, the Registered Person stated that every time he spoke to the Council, he was informed that nothing was showing on the system but to be patient as there were severe backlogs due to Covid. He stated that he was thoroughly led to believe that the uploaded application would progress eventually, but Covid had led to abnormal and unusual delays. The Registered Person also provided a copy of the RIBA Concise Professional Services Contract for Architectural Services in respect of Referrer 1, a copy of the timeline of UK government coronavirus lockdowns and measures between March 2020 and December 2021, a Harvest software detailed time report showing a breakdown of the work undertaken by ZAP between 1 April 2021 and 24 May 2021 and correspondence with the Council in respect of delays in relation to other planning applications submitted by ZAP.

 

Response in respect of Project B – Complaint by Referrer 2

44. The Registered Person provided his initial representations to the ARB on 17 March 2023 and further representations on 1 June 2023.

45. In his initial representations, the Registered Person stated that the planning documents were issued to Referrer 2 on 14 June 2021 and uploaded digitally to the planning portal on the same day. He stated that ZAP worked hard for 5-6 weeks assembling all the information necessary planning documents for submission on the digital planning portal. He stated that the drawings and designs were created in a timely and professional manner.

46. The Registered Person stated that, as with Project A, he had chased the Council and experienced the same difficulties in speaking to someone about the progress of the application. He stated that when he did speak to someone, he was told to be patient as there were severe backlogs due to Covid and that the Council was changing their systems. He stated that he fully empathised with Referrer 2, but that any delay was outside of his control. He stated that he refunded Referrer 2’s fees for the same reason he reimbursed Referrer 1.

47. In his further representations dated 1 June 2021, the Registered Person addressed the allegation that he failed to provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code. He stated that Referrer 2 was provided with a fee proposal at the beginning of the project, pre-commencement of the works. He stated that the fee proposal was sent via the Harvest payment infrastructure and contained the same data and documents as each new ZAP project: (1) ZAP Architecture Terms and Conditions, (2) Draft RIBA Standard Professional Services Contract, and (3) Fee Proposals unique to the job.

48. In relation to the delay, he made similar representations to those in respect of Project A. He repeated his position that he should have queried the delay more aggressively but that it is not the job of an Architect to query the local authority’s requests for patience in the wake of Covid.

49. He noted that planning permission was agreed in full by the Council without any modifications required.

50. The Registered Person also provided a copy of the draft RIBA Concise Professional Services Contract for Architectural Services in respect of Referrer 2, a copy of the timeline of UK government coronavirus lockdowns and measures between March 2020 and December 2021, a Harvest software detailed time report showing a breakdown of the work undertaken by ZAP between 13 May 2021 and 3 June 2021 and correspondence with the Council in respect of delays in relation to other planning applications submitted by ZAP.

 

 

Evidence

51. The Committee took into account the documentary evidence contained within the hearing bundle which included:

i. The Report to ARB dated 14 November 2023 prepared by Kingsley Napley.
ii. The witness statement dated 17 August 2023 of Referrer 1 in relation to Project A.
iii. The witness statement dated 18 August 2023 of Referrer 2 in relation to Project B.
iv. The witness statement dated 4 August 2023 of Matthew Harding, an Investigations Officer at the ARB, detailing his correspondence with the Registered Person.
v. The witness statement dated 9 November 2023 of Lily Matthews-Cook, a Senior Paralegal at Kingsley Napley, detailing the unsuccessful attempts made by Kingsley Napley and the ARB to obtain signed witness statements from Ms B-G (the Planning Officer at the Council assigned to the planning application in respect of Property A) and Ms A (the Planning Officer at the Council assigned to the planning application in respect of Property B).
vi. The documentary exhibits in relation to Project A.
vii. The documentary exhibits in relation to Project B.
viii. The ARB correspondence with the Registered Person between June and July 2023, produced as exhibits by Matthew Harding.
ix. The Kingsley Napley and ARB correspondence with Ms B-G and Ms A, produced as exhibits by Lily Matthews-Cook.
x. The Registered Person’s representations.
xi. The Decision dated 19 December 2023 of Martin Winter, Legally Qualified Chair of the Professional Conduct Committee, to allow the ARB to admit evidence of a previous finding of fact by a Hearing Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee made against the Registered Person on 16 November 2018, namely:

“Allegation 1: You failed to carry out work without undue delay (found proved)

The Respondent was instructed to make a pre-planning application to the Council.

This was submitted in June 2015. The Respondent gave evidence that he regularly chased the council by phone every week and followed that up with monthly emails. By January 2016 there was no progress with the application and the Complainant telephoned the council himself. The Complainant gave evidence that the impression he was given was that the application had not been chased.

The Committee considered that the Respondent did delay in chasing up the Council. There was no evidence of weekly telephone calls contrary to the Respondent’s oral evidence. There were no telephone notes produced in evidence. The emails that were sent do not reference previous telephone conversations nor any sense of urgency and frustration at the delay. There is no evidence that the Respondent chased up the council after his e-mail of 6 October 2015 until 12 January 2016.

The Committee is satisfied that the Respondent delayed in carrying out work that he was instructed to undertake.

52. The Committee also heard evidence from the Registered Person.

53. During his oral evidence, the Registered Person applied to admit documentary evidence that he had not previously served in accordance with case management directions made in this case. The Presenter did not object to the evidence being admitted but indicated that she would require some time to consider it before she commenced her cross-examination of the Registered Person. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair. The Committee decided to give permission to the Registered Person to admit the new evidence pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules on the basis that the evidence was relevant and that in all the circumstances it would be fair to allow it. The Registered Person produced the following as exhibits:

i. A screen shot of the Planning Portal website. (Exhibit R1)
ii. Further screen shots of the Planning Portal website. (Exhibit R2)
iii. Screenshots of the Harvest Accounting and Timekeeping software used by ZAP in relation to Project A and Project B. (Exhibit R3)
iv. A character reference dated 26 March 2025 from Dr Keith Winter, the Registered Person’s line manager at a University in the United Kingdom. (Exhibit R4)

Decision on the Facts

The Committee’s approach

54. In reaching its decision on the facts, the Committee has borne in mind the burden of proof rests solely on the ARB. The Registered Person does not need to prove anything. The standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.

55. The Committee had regard to the written and oral submissions from the parties.

56. The Committee also took into account the advice provided by the Legally Qualified Chair, which was provided in public session, and upon which the parties were invited to comment. The Committee accepted fully that advice.

57. The Committee had regard to the Standards contained in the Architects Code (2017) (“the Code”).

58. The Committee considered each of the disputed factual particulars of the Allegation separately.

 

In respect of Project A

The Timeline

59. Having considered all the available evidence, the Committee considered Project A’s timeline to have been thus:

i. March 2021 – Referrer 1 engaged the Registered Person to design a loft conversion and submit the plans for planning approval in relation to her home, Property A.
ii. On 25 March 2021, the Registered Person met with Referrer 1 to discuss her project.
iii. On 26 March 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 1 providing various documents including ZAP’s proposal for the scheme which was split into two phases. Phase 1 listed the scope of services provided by ZAP as “everything ‘up to’ planning submission” including a measured survey, creation of the design for the loft conversion and the submission of the planning application to Haringey Council (“the Council”) for a fee of £2836. Within that document, the Registered Person included reference to a Council planning authority charge of approximately £260 for all planning applications noting “This is paid directly to the Council by the client- we send a payment link to the Complainant via email for payment via debit card to the local authority”. Phase 2 itemised the services in relation to construction drawings through to monitoring the building site. The Registered Person was instructed for Phase 1 only.
iv. On 31 March 2021, the Registered Person visited Property A to conduct a measured survey.
v. On 23 May 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 1 attaching his proposed design.
vi. On 24 May 2021, Referrer 1 responded advising that she was pleased with the design and that she was content for it to be sent to the Council.
vii. On 31 May 2021, the Registered Person responded advising that he wanted “to spend another few hours changing the wording of some of the statement then we’re good to go”. He confirmed- “I’ll let you know when we’re in the system”. Referrer 1 has confirmed in her witness statement that she understood from the Registered Person’s email that the application would be submitted shortly after 31 May 2021.
viii. On 11 June 2021, Referrer 1 emailed the Registered Person querying whether the planning application has been submitted to the Council.
ix. On 14 June 2021, the Registered Person responded, advising that the planning application had been submitted but “the planners have still not issued the payment request so I’ve called this morning, and someone will request this today or tomorrow apparently”. He added that the Council had advised him they were behind on some planning applications, but it was unclear as to what period of delay to expect. Referrer 1 has confirmed in her witness statement that further to this email, the Registered Person did not ask her to pay a planning fee, nor did he provide any further update as to the absence of a request for a planning fee by the Council.
x. On 24 August 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 1 advising that the Council remained “extremely behind schedule on most of [his applications]” but that he would “keep chasing them and aim to get the planning decision ASAP but it’s slow”.
xi. On 4 January 2022, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 1 advising he was “chasing the planning department aggressively this week on some sort of update as they are still proving very poor at responding with anything of note”. He advised Referrer 1 that he would be in touch as soon as he had a “solid reaction” from the Council.
xii. On 27 January 2022 and 7 March 2022, Referrer 1 emailed the Registered Person querying if there had been any further update from the Council regarding her planning application. She did not receive a response to either email.
xiii. On 14 June 2022, Referrer 1 emailed the Registered Person seeking an update for the third time.
xiv. On 15 June 2022, the Registered Person replied advising that he had been away for a week but was doing his weekly check today and would update her “once I speak with someone in the planning department today”. Referrer 1 did not receive any further information from the Registered Person.
xv. On 27 July 2022, Referrer 1 sent a further email. No response was received from the Registered Person.
xvi. On 22 August 2022, Referrer 1 contacted the Registered Person to advise him that as she had not heard back from him, she had taken it on herself to contact the Council directly. She advised the Registered Person: “[The Council] told [me] they could find no application in relation to [my] address or Tracey’s -not in building control or in planning. They also told me applications were taking max 5-7 weeks. So I’m sure you can imagine that’s left me pretty confused and concerned. I’ve tried to call you a few times today and not got through. Could you come back to me urgently and let me know what’s happened?”
xvii. On 23 August 2022, the Registered Person replied advising that he would get to the bottom of what had happened as soon as possible. Specifically, he stated: “I’ll spend today/ tomorrow getting to the bottom of this and see if I can outline all the evidence from the planning department from our side so there is a clear paper trail and timeline.
I’ll sort this and update ASAP – aiming to get some answers today – I can evidence submission dates / and emails so keen to see their records and hear their response. Will respond later once I get some communication with the Council”.
xviii. On 26 August 2022, having not received any further update from the Registered Person, Referrer 1 sent a further email, requesting that he get in touch urgently.
xix. On 26 August 2022, the Registered Person responded on the same date advising he was in the process of contacting the Council and would update her as soon as he could. He sent a second email on the same day stating ZAP had not acted any differently or taken any shortcuts on the project, and that Referrer 1’s application had been submitted online following the usual processes. Referrer 1 responded with a request that she be kept updated, even if it was only to say there had been no news from the Council.
xx. On 26 August 2022, the Registered Person sent a further email to Referrer 1 stating: “The Haringey Council Planning department staff are saying the issue is with the digital planning portal where we upload our planning documents originally. The ‘planning portal’ don’t talk to or relate to individual councils ‐ they just distribute the applications to the relevant planning authority (this is how every application is submitted). I’ve spoken to Paul Lutchman (who was very helpful) and his boss Marco at Haringey ‐ who have advised me to chase the planning portal digital team today and see where the application sits. We’re doing this now.
Obviously this is very frustrating ‐ I’ve had this before on one application but I will do my utmost to see the issue and correct anything that’s not been passed on to Haringey.
I obviously want this to go through as quickly as you guys do ‐ so I’m pushing to get this resolved. I’ll keep you updated.
I feel a bit silly being fobbed off being told to ‘be patient’ every couple of months when I chased this over the phone.
I’ll sort this one way or the other ‐ they are on 7 weeks now according to Paul Lutchman which would be the extreme worst case if they don’t expedite the issue.
I’m very sorry about this and happy to forfeit any fees.”
xxi. On 30 August 2022, Referrer 1 sent an email thanking the Registered Person for his offer regarding forfeiting fees. She asked that they wait to find out when the planning application had been submitted before going any further. She advised “we will wait to hear you have confirmation”.
xxii. On 3 September 2022, Referrer 1 chased the Registered Person, stating: “I’m sorry that I have heard nothing more from you for another week. When I said I would wait to hear from you I assumed you would have sorted this with the Council and back to me within a couple of days. There is an urgency here for us and a significant personal loss for Tracey which I just don’t see reflected in your response. I am now in touch with the people who recommended you as I try to understand what has happened here and what to do next. If you have found out more about our plans, please do update me”.
xxiii. On 7 September 2022, the Registered Person replied, advising he had answers from the planning portal that morning. He advised that conventionally ZAP always upload and submit all planning documents to the planning portal who in turn submit all documents to the appropriate borough council. He said: “they didn’t pass on all the relevant documents or log the application with Haringey- this is extremely frustrating as I feel we did everything as normal / professionally and didn’t receive any correspondence other than “be patient” when we pressed them for updates.” He confirmed he had been given a planning portal number of PP-11507576 and Council application number 20222193. He advised he was pressing the Council to expedite Referrer 1 and Referrer 2’s applications. He commented he was “very annoyed” at himself and would not be charging professional fees. He confirmed he would forward his communications with the Council to Referrer 1.
xxiv. On 26 September 2022, Referrer 1 forwarded the Registered Person correspondence between Referrer 2 and Council employee Mr A, Development Management Support Team, in which he advised: “I have thoroughly checked both our Planning database and the Planning Portal’s list of applications submitted to Haringey, and I am afraid that there is no record in either location of any application for [Property B] having been either submitted or received, either online via the Planning Portal, or by post or email. This is the reason, unfortunately, that there was no response from the Council’s Planning Department. I have copied our Building Control Department into this email, by the way, in case they have any information on this from their perspective that might be of use.”
xxv. On 26 September 2022, Referrer 1 sent an email to the Registered Person stating:“ [Referrer 2] has just forwarded the emails. I am dumbfounded. You led me to believe that you were following exactly the same process for Tracey as you were for me. I told you back at the beginning that I had checked Tracey’s address along with mine and knew there were no plans for Haringey…Can I ask that you now forward to me and to Tracey any evidence that you have that you submitted the plans last year. I believe you would have received email confirmation from the portal of receipt and notification of which local authority they have been lodged with and also email from Haringey confirming receipt and providing reference number and likely timescale for a decision. I am assuming you have those documents from 2021 for both addresses.”
xxvi. On 26 September 2022, the Registered Person replied advising that he had done all the drawings and that “there is absolutely no benefit for me not to gain planning permission as quickly as possible.” He also stated he had a “paper trail showing what was carried out and when.”
xxvii. On 3 October 2022, Referrer 1 responded requesting confirmation that the Council was in receipt of the planning application for Referrer 2, in addition to copies of the emails received from both the Planning Portal and the Council in 2021 that led him to believe the applications had been received and accepted. Referrer 1 advised that if they did not have confirmation of those items by the end of the week, she would make a complaint to the Royal Institute of British Architects.
xxviii. On 25 October 2022, the Registered Person advised Referrer 1 that her application was being recommended for approval and that he was following the same process for Referrer 2’s application. He apologised for the length of time it had taken for her application to be decided upon. He did not respond to Referrer 1’s request for evidence that had led him to believe her planning application had been submitted in 2021.
xxix. On 26 October 2022, the Registered Person confirmed that Referrer 1’s planning application had been approved by the Council. A copy of the Notice of Planning Permission confirms the application was received by the Council on 26 August 2022.
xxx. On 16 February 2023, Referrer 1 took the Registered Person up on his offer to reimburse his fees.
xxxi. On 17 February 2023, the Registered Person responded stating he was saddened that she wanted a full refund but agreed the time taken to obtain approval was “much too long”. He repeated that he had submitted the planning application and that “what occurs within the planning process after this point is often frustratingly at the mercy of councils and the process”. He indicated he was aware that Referrer 1 had complained to the ARB.
xxxii. On 23 February 2023, the Registered Person emailed to confirm he had arranged for a refund of the fees. He reiterated he was sorry that Referrer 1 had experienced a delay but he was not responsible for the Council’s timescales. He stated his “only regret was not being more aggressive with the planning department”. He informed her “I’m now in serious discussions with my institution, the ARB, on this matter due to your complaint. I will deal with this with them; but if I can offer you anything else or any clarification please let me know”.

Particular 1(a) NOT PROVED

In respect of Project A, the Registered Person failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he: (a) Failed to submit the planning application for Project A in a timely manner;

60. The Committee noted the content of the letter from the Council to the Registered Person dated 26 October 2022, which confirmed that the planning application in respect of Property B had been approved by the Council. The Committee further noted that the letter stated that the planning application was received by the Council on 26 August 2022.

61. In his oral evidence, the Registered Person stated that he had submitted the planning application in respect of Property A following the usual process through the Planning Portal website on 14 June 2021. He stated that the Planning Portal was a digital platform through which all planning applications had to be submitted, irrespective of the local authority. He further stated that the application would then be sent to the relevant local authority by the Planning Portal.

62. During his oral evidence, the Registered Person produced several screenshots of the Planning Portal website (exhibits R1 and R2).

63. The Committee noted that in respect of Property A, under the heading “Application History”, these screenshots showed:

“Application received on Mon 14 June 2021 at 16:11:38
Application submitted on Fri 26 Aug 2022 at 15:50:49
Application payment initiated on Fri 26 Aug 2022 at 15:49:35”

64. The Committee further noted that having taken instructions on the new evidence contained in exhibits R1 and R2, the Presenter informed the Committee that the ARB withdrew Particular 1(a).

65. The Committee therefore found Particular 1(a) not proved.

Particular 1(b) PROVED

In respect of Project A, the Registered Person failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he: (b) Did not take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project A;
66. The Committee noted that Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code states:

“6.2 You should carry out your professional work without undue delay and, so
far is reasonably practicable, in accordance with any time-scale and cost
limits agreed with your client.”

67. The Committee accepted the Registered Person’s oral evidence that having been engaged by Referrer 1, he had worked hard for five to six weeks to prepare all of the drawings and documents required for Referrer 1’s planning application in respect of Project A to be submitted through the digital planning portal. The Committee noted that in his written response to the ARB, the Registered Person provided a detailed time record of the work undertaken on Project A from the Harvest software used by ZAP. The Committee noted that all of the work was undertaken prior to the 14 June 2021, which was the date the Registered Person told the Committee that he had uploaded and submitted the application through the digital planning portal.

68. The Committee accepted the Registered Person’s oral evidence that he was familiar with submitting planning applications through the digital portal and that he followed the same process on this occasion as he had done previously in respect of other unrelated applications.

69. The Committee noted that in his oral evidence, the Registered Person stated that he submitted the planning application through the digital planning portal on 14 June 2021. The Committee further noted that in his email to Referrer 1 on 14 June 2021, the Registered Person advised that the ‘payment for application’ request had not been issued and that “I’ve called this morning and someone will request this either today or tomorrow apparently.” In his oral evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person stated that the payment initiation request should have been initiated upon submission of the application through the digital planning portal. He told the Committee that he thought it was odd that it had not been.

70. The Committee noted that in his written response to the ARB, the Registered Person stated that he had waited two weeks before contacting the Council as he was aware from previous applications that it often took 1-2 weeks to validate applications and that Covid was also slowing things down at that time. He stated that when he did speak to someone at the Council by telephone, he was informed that the application was not on the system yet, and to ‘be patient’ as there were severe backlogs due to Covid and that the Council was changing their systems. The Committee noted that in his written response to the ARB, the Registered Person provided evidence that ZAP’s previous three applications to the Council had taken between 13 and 17 months and that he had received apologies from the Council for the delay. The Committee noted that the Registered Person confirmed this in his oral evidence. The Committee therefore accepted that given the circumstances that existed at the time, it was reasonable for the Registered Person to accept what he was told by the Council when he first contacted them.

71. The Committee had regard to the timeline for Project A set out at paragraph 59(i) – (xxxii) above. The Committee noted that ultimately, the planning application was not received by the Council until 26 August 2022. This was after Referrer 1 had informed the Registered Person that she contacted the Council directly and found out that there was no record of her application. The Committee noted that it was only after receiving this information from Referrer 1, that the Registered Person stated that it was his view that there had been a problem with the Council receiving the application from the digital planning portal. The Committee also noted that the Registered Person paid the ‘payment for application’ fee of £238.20 on 26 August 2022, and that he received an email from the Planning Portal Team on 26 August 2022, confirming receipt of the payment and stating that “The application and fee will now be submitted to Haringey London Borough Council.”

72. The Committee noted that it did not have any documentary evidence of the steps taken by the Registered Person to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application between 14 June 2021 and 26 August 2022, or regarding what the Registered Person states that he had established as being a problem with the application being sent from the Planning Portal to the Council.

73. The Committee noted that in his oral evidence, the Registered Person told the Committee that he had not sent any emails to either the Planning Portal Team or to the Council. It noted that the Registered Person stated that because no planning officer had been assigned, he could not email the planning officer directly. The Committee further noted that in cross-examination, the Registered Person accepted that there was a generic planning support email address available at the Council but that he had chosen not to use it. The Committee took into account that both Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 had successfully used this generic planning support email address to ascertain that the Council had no record of their planning applications.

74. The Committee noted that in his oral evidence, the Registered Person told the Committee that all of his contact with the Council had been by telephone. He described this as a frustrating process as he would often be expected to wait on hold for several hours which was not practicable. He stated that when he did speak to somebody at the Council, he would ask about the progress of the applications in relation to Project A and Project B. He stated that he was repeatedly told that the applications were not yet “in the system” and that should be patient. He stated that he was told that the delay was due to the backlog and difficulties arising from Covid. The Committee noted that in some of his emails to Referrer 1, he referenced his “weekly check” with the Council. However, in his oral evidence, the Registered Person did not suggest that he was calling the Council this frequently but told the Committee he was calling the Council regularly when he had the time to do so given the other demands on his time.

75. The Committee noted that the Registered Person did not produce any documentary evidence in relation to the telephone calls. He told the Committee that he had tried to obtain the itemised billing for his telephone but was told that it was not available as it was over 12 months ago. The Registered Person also told the Committee that he did not keep a written record or log of the calls he made.

76. In the Committee’s view, even allowing for the exceptional circumstances and delays arising from the Covid pandemic, the Registered Person as an experienced architect should have taken further steps to ascertain why the planning application was not in “the system” at the Council. The Committee considered that that the Registered Person should have made appropriate enquires with both the Planning Portal Team and the Council as to why a ‘payment for application’ request had not been initiated. The Committee noted that save for his email of 14 June 2021, in which he told Referrer 1 that he had discussed it with someone on the Council on 14 June 2021 and that he was told that the request would be made “either today or tomorrow”, the Registered Person appears to have taken no steps to follow this up, even though payment of this fee was a prerequisite for the application to proceed. In this regard, the Committee noted that it was only after the Registered Person subsequently paid the fee on 26 August 2022, that he received written notification that the planning application and fee would “now be submitted” to the Council.

77. Whilst the Committee had some sympathy with the Registered Person’s evidence that he did not want to chase the Council in an aggressive manner because ultimately, the Council would be the body making the decision on the planning application, it noted from the evidence he supplied as part of his written response, he has emailed the planning department of the Council in July 2021, in respect of a wholly separate application, expressing his frustration in forthright terms.

78. Given the significant delay in this case, the Committee was of the view that the Registered Person should have done more, and at the very least he should have sent an email to the generic planning support email address at the Council, setting out the chronology of the application and his concerns, including that no ‘payment for application’ fee request had been initiated, the application had not been validated by the Council, and the application did not “appear on their system”. The Committee was also of the view that the Registered Person should have made enquiries of the Planning Portal Team prior to being informed by Referrer 1 that the Council had no record of her application. Had the Registered Person sought written confirmation of the status of the application from both the Council and the Planning Portal Team, then he would have been in a better position to ascertain what steps he should have then taken to progress the application.

79. The Committee had regard to the timeline and noted that when Referrer 1 contacted the Council directly on one occasion in August 2022, she was informed that the Council had not received the planning application. She was also told that as of August 2022, applications were taking between five and seven weeks to process. Having passed this information to the Registered Person, he was able to ensure that the application was submitted and received by the Council on 26 August 2022. The Committee noted that it was granted on 26 October 2022, not far off the timescale given to Referrer 1.

80. The Committee was satisfied that had the Registered Person taken adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the application prior to Referrer 1 having contacted the Council, that he could have found out the same information that she did and therefore may have been able to reduce the significant delay that occurred.

81. In reaching its decision, the Committee noted that during his closing submissions, the Registered Person referred the Committee to the provisions in Clause 9.2 of the RIBA ‘Concise Professional Services Contract 2018 for Architectural Services’, which provides that the Respondent may suspend or terminate performance of any or all of the services and other obligations under the contract by giving the Complainant at least 7 days’ written notice and stating the grounds on which it intends to do so. He submitted that the Covid pandemic amounted to grounds to invoke this clause.

82. However, the Committee noted that in his written responses to the ARB and in his oral evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person had made no mention of this clause in the contract, nor had he made any mention of purporting to serve written notice to Referrer 1 of his intention to suspend or terminate performance of any or all of the services and other obligations under the contract.

83. In the circumstances, the Committee determined that the Registered Person’s submissions in this regard had no merit.
84. Having regard to all the above matters, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he did not take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project A.

85. The Committee reached this decision without relying upon the evidence of the Registered Person’s previous regulatory finding in support of the ARB’s case.

86. The Committee therefore found Particular 1(b) proved.

Particular 1(c) PROVED

In respect of Project A, the Registered Person failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he: (c) Did not keep the Complainant adequately informed about the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project A.

87. The Committee noted that although Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code is referred to in the stem of the allegation, Standard 6.3 relates specifically to the expectation for an Architect to keep their client informed of the progress of work.

88. The Committee noted that Standard 6.3 of the Architects Code 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.”

89. In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account the Registered Person’s written representations and oral evidence in relation to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the difficulties and extra pressure this placed upon him at the time of Project A.

90. However, in the Committee’s view, having regard to the timeline for Project A set out at paragraph 59(i) – (xxxii) above, there were (i) multiple occasions where the Registered Person failed to respond at all to emails sent to him by Referrer 1, and (ii) there were significant periods where there was no contact by the Registered Person with Referrer 1, on occasions for several months at a time. The Committee considered that even if the Registered Person did not have any updated information from the Council to give to Referrer 1, he should nevertheless have kept her informed of the steps he was continuing to take in order to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application. Furthermore, the Registered Person was aware that Referrer 1 was unfamiliar with the planning process, and that for personal reasons relating to the purpose behind Project A, she was anxious that it be dealt with expeditiously. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person did not keep Referrer 1 adequately informed about the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project A.

91. The Committee also had regard to the Registered Person’s closing submissions in relation to this particular and to Particular 2(b)(iii), in which he submitted that “I actually, on the weight of the evidence, I have to admit guilt here and say it’s not good enough”.

92. The Committee therefore found Particular 1(c) proved.

In respect of Project B

The Timeline

93. Having considered all the available evidence, the Committee considered Project B’s timeline to have been thus:

i. On 29 March 2021, Referrer 2 approached the Registered Person in relation to the design and submission of a planning application for a ground floor wet room and rear extension for her home address, Property B.
ii. On 3 April 2021, the Registered Person met Referrer 2 at Property B to discuss the project. They discussed timescales and Referrer 2 explained that she wanted the work to be completed by 2022.
iii. On 4 May 2021, the Registered Person stated that he sent Referrer 2 an initial invoice via the Harvest accounting software used by ZAP. The Registered Person stated that two documents: (1) ZAP Architecture Terms and Conditions, and (2) Draft RIBA Standard Professional Services Contract were attached to the invoice.
iv. In early May 2021, Referrer 2 was informed by Referrer 1 that the Registered Person had sent Referrer 2 an email about costings.
v. On 4 May 2022, Referrer 2 emailed the Registered Person stating: “Thank you for letting me know that you had sent the information previously. I don’t know what happened but I have not been able to locate it on my computer… Please whatever you send me if you can cc Kate, then I know I will get it. I may have to change my email addresses as am concerned that I did not get your previous email about costings… So looking forward to seeing the costings and information as I am truly excited to work with you.”
vi. On 11 May 2021, the Registered Person replied to Referrer 2 by email, stating: “… I’ve gotten Elif, the office manager to put a fee proposal together. This is attached. Its usually 50% upfront before we begin the job and then 50% on the date we submit the finalised plans to the borough council. Attached is the fee proposal and some documents on engaging an architect…”. The Committee noted that no terms of engagement were attached to the Registered Person’s email dated 11 May 2021.
vii. On 12 May 2021, Referrer 2 responded providing confirmation of the Registered Person’s appointment. Referrer 2 requested that Referrer 1 be copied into future correspondence as she was experiencing difficulties in receiving the Registered Person’s emails.
viii. On 15 May 2021, the Registered Person visited the property to take measurements.
ix. On 23 May 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 2 providing three different design options.
x. On 27 May 2021, a meeting took place, followed by the Registered Person sending through an updated design pack. Referrer 2 responded on the same date advising of her favoured design.
xi. On 29 May 2021, a further meeting was held with a view to finalising the design.
xii. On 13 June 2021, Referrer 2 emailed the Registered Person seeking an update on the status of her planning application.
xiii. On 14 June 2021, the Registered Person responded advising that he had “submitted for planning”, and that they “should hear from the council this week with request for planning fee £240 and receipt of being validated etc”. He also informed Referrer 2 that “I imagine we’ll be behind schedule as all my other planning applications are delayed with Council Covid excuses. Hopefully not. I’ll keep you updated or everything as I go or hear more. I’m trying to get through this morning but so far no pick up from planners.”
xiv. On 24 August 2021, the Registered Person emailed Referrer 2 advising her that the Council were experiencing delays due to Covid. Referrer 2 confirms in her witness statement that she did not chase the Registered Person for an update on the status of her planning application as she knew from Referrer 1 that her application had not progressed and so she presumed it was the same position in respect of her application.
xv. By September 2022, Referrer 2 had become frustrated by the delay. She stated that she had not heard from the Registered Person since 24 August 2021, and that she had heard from Referrer 1 that her application had been delayed due to issues with the planning portal.
xvi. On 24 September 2022, Referrer 2 emailed the Planning Department at the Council. In her witness statement, Referrer 2 confirmed that she also phoned the Council and was informed that that they had no record of her application.
xvii. On 26 September 2022, Referrer 2 received an email response from the Council. She was advised that there was no record of any planning application submitted in relation to her address on either the planning database or the planning portal’s list of applications. The Registered Person was copied into this correspondence and replied suggesting that this issue must be due to a similar upload issue he had encountered with another application. He advised Referrer 2 that he would be “in touch asap this week with resolution”.
xviii. On 7 October 2022, Referrer 2 emailed the Registered Person to ask that he resubmit the plans to the Council. She had not heard from him since his email of 26 September 2022. Referrer 2 was desperate to get her application submitted due to her personal family circumstances.
xix. On 10 October 2022, the Registered Person confirmed he was trying to resolve the submission of the planning application as quickly as possible. Referrer 2 responded on the same date requesting the Registered Person to confirm that her planning application had been submitted. She also asked for the planning application reference number. The Registered Person did not respond.
xx. On 18 October 2022, Referrer 2 sent a further email to the Registered Person stating that she had still not heard from him in respect of the planning application number. She stated that she felt “totally let down by [the Registered Person’s] lack of contact”. The Registered Person replied on the same day, offering to reimburse her fees, commenting that “this is a planning portal issue as far as I can see ‐ but I understand you put your trust in me to manage this”. Within the same email, the Registered Person confirmed he would provide proof of his correspondence with the Council regarding his attempts at resolving the delays regarding the planning application.
xxi. On 11 April 2023, the Council notified Referrer 2 that planning permission had been granted in relation to the planning application submitted by the Registered Person. The Notice of Planning Permission confirms that the planning application was received by the Council on 20 January 2023.

94. On 22 November 2022, Referrer 2 submitted her complaint to the ARB.

Particular 2(a) PROVED

In respect of Project B, the Registered Person: (a) Did not provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code;

95. The Committee noted that Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code states:

“4.4 You are expected to ensure that before you undertake any professional work
you have entered into a written agreement with the Complainant 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.”

96. In his oral evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person stated that ZAP uses the Harvest accounting and time-keeping software. He stated that ZAP always used the Harvest software to create fee proposals and invoices for clients.

97. The Registered Person referred the Committee to the screenshots of the Harvest software in relation to the fee proposal for Referrer 1 and the initial invoice for Referrer 2. The Registered Person explained that in relation to Referrer 2, there was no separate fee proposal document, only an initial invoice. The Registered Person told the Committee that two documents would automatically be attached to every fee proposal/ initial invoice created by ZAP, namely: (1) the Royal Institute of British Architects (“RIBA”) ‘Concise Professional Services Contract 2018 for Architectural Services’ and (2) ‘Zap Architecture Terms and Conditions’. The Registered Person stated that this could be demonstrated by reference to the screenshots as they both showed the two documents as attachments.

98. The Registered Person explained that when the user at ZAP pressed the ‘Send Invoice’ button on the Harvest software, it would automatically generate an email to Referrer 2 containing the invoice and the two documents as attachments that Referrer 2 could open.

99. The Registered Person referred the Committee to exhibit R3, which contained screenshots of the Harvest software in respect of the invoice created for Referrer 2. He told the Committee that from the ‘Invoice History’ information contained on the screenshots, he believed that at 9:05pm on 4 May 2021, he had pressed the ‘Send Invoice’ button causing the Harvest software to automatically generate an email to Referrer 2 containing the invoice and the two documents as attachments.

100. The Committee noted that in her witness statement, Referrer 2 stated that after meeting the Registered Person in April 2021 to discuss Project B:

“…I did not hear from the Registered Person for a few weeks. I did not chase him as I did not want to bother him. Around May 2021, I found out from Kate Gledhill, who asked the Registered Person on my behalf, that he had supposedly sent me an email about costings, but I never received this.

On 4 May 2021, I emailed the Registered Person to confirm that I wished to proceed
with instructing him. I also asked him to copy Kate Gledhill into any emails, as I was
worried that I may not receive any further emails from him.”

101. The Committee noted that in her email to the Registered Person dated 4 May 2021, Referrer 2 stated:

“…Thank you for letting me know that you had sent the information previously. I don’t know what happened but I have not been able to locate it on my computer…”

102. The Committee noted that the Registered Person replied to Referrer 2’s in an email dated 11 May 2021, in which he stated:

“Hi Tracey ‐ hope you are well and I’m terribly sorry you thought I wasn’t contacting you/ I thought the same!
It’s pretty common for people to take some time thinking about whether they want to proceed with the project and the fees so we are used to waiting a little bit from the first visit.
Anyway ‐ glad we’ve got our wires uncrossed.
I’ve gotten Elif, the office manager to put a fee proposal together.
This is attached. It’s usually 50% upfront before we begin the job and then 50% on the date we submit the finalized plans to the borough council.
Attached is the fee proposal overall and some documents on engaging an architect.
Please let me know if you have any questions or queries…”

103. The Committee noted that the Registered Person had attached 3 documents to his email dated 11 May 2021, namely:

i. Invoice_298_ZAP_Architecture.pdf;
ii. 210207_ZAP_Residential Portfolio 2021.lr.pdf; and
iii. 2016_RIBA_AClientsGuidetoEngaginganArchitect.prf.

104. The Committee noted that the Registered Person did not attach either the RIBA ‘Concise Professional Services Contract 2018 for Architectural Services’ or the ZAP Architecture Terms and Conditions documents to this email. When asked by the Committee why he did not do so, given that by the 11 May 2021 he had been made aware by Referrer 2 that she had not received/ been unable to locate any previous email from ZAP attaching documents, the Registered Person stated that until she paid the invoice, the Harvest software would have generated further periodic emails to Referrer 2 containing the invoice and the two documents.

105. In his evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person stated that with the benefit of hindsight, given that Referrer 2 was having difficulty accessing documents electronically, he should have provided her with a hard copy. He stated that if a similar situation arose in the future, that is what he would do.
106. In reaching its decision, the Committee was satisfied that if the Registered Person and Referrer 2 had entered into a written agreement using the RIBA ‘Concise Professional Services Contract 2018 for Architectural Services’, then it would have complied with the requirements of Standard 4.4 of the Code. However, they did not enter into such a written agreement because Referrer 2 either did not receive, or was unable to locate, the email sent to her by the Harvest software containing this document. The Registered Person was made aware of this on 4 May 2021 and accepts that he did not provide Referrer 2 with another copy. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person was under a duty, in accordance with Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code, to ensure that he had entered into a written agreement with Referrer 2 before undertaking any professional work and that he failed to do so.

107. The Committee therefore found Particular 2(a) proved.

Particular 2(b)(i) NOT PROVED

In respect of Project B, the Registered Person: (b) Failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he: (i) Failed to submit the planning application for Project B in a timely manner;

108. The Committee noted the content of the letter from the Council to the Registered Person dated 11 April 2023, which confirmed that the planning application in respect of Property B had been approved by the Council. The Committee further noted that the letter stated that the planning application was received by the Council on 20 January 2023.

109. In his oral evidence, the Registered Person stated that he had submitted the planning application in respect of Property B following the usual process through the Planning Portal website on 14 June 2021. He stated that the Planning Portal was a digital platform through which all planning applications had to be submitted, irrespective of the local authority. He further stated that the application would then be sent to the relevant local authority by the Planning Portal.
110. During his oral evidence, the Registered Person produced several screenshots of the Planning Portal website (exhibits R1 and R2).

111. The Committee noted that in respect of Property B, under the heading “Application History”, these screenshots showed:

“Application received on Mon 14 June 2021 at 08:15:30
Application submitted on Fri 20 Jan 2023 at 00:37:21
Application payment initiated on Fri Jan 2023 at 00:36:12”

112. The Committee further noted that having taken instructions on the new evidence contained in exhibits R1 and R2, the Presenter informed the Committee that the ARB withdrew Particular 2(b)(i).

113. The Committee therefore found Particular 2(b)(i) not proved.

Particular 2(b)(ii) PROVED

In respect of Project B, the Registered Person: (b) Failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he: (ii) Did not take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project B;

114. The Committee had regard to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code (as set out above).

115. The Committee accepted the Registered Person’s oral evidence that having been engaged by Referrer 2, he had worked hard for five to six weeks to prepare all of the drawings and documents required for Referrer 2’s planning application in respect of Project B to be submitted through the digital planning portal. The Committee noted that in his written response to the ARB, the Registered Person provided a detailed time record of the work undertaken on Project B from the Harvest software used by ZAP. The Committee noted that all of the work was undertaken prior to the 14 June 2021, which was the date the Registered Person told the Committee that he had uploaded and submitted the application through the digital planning portal.

116. The Committee accepted the Registered Person’s oral evidence that he was familiar with submitting planning applications through the digital portal and that he followed the same process on this occasion as he had done previously in respect of other unrelated applications.

117. The Committee noted that in his oral evidence, the Registered Person stated that he submitted the planning application through the digital planning portal on 14 June 2021. The Committee further noted that in his email to Referrer 2 on 14 June 2021, the Registered Person advised that we “should hear from the council this week with request for planning fee £240 and receipt of being validated etc”. He also informed Referrer 2 that “I imagine we’ll be behind schedule as all my other planning applications are delayed with Council Covid excuses. Hopefully not. I’ll keep you updated or everything as I go or hear more. I’m trying to get through this morning but so far no pick up from planners.” In his oral evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person stated that the payment initiation request should have been initiated upon submission of the application through the digital planning portal.

118. The Committee noted that in his oral evidence, the Registered Person explained that when he did speak to someone at the Council by telephone, he was informed that the application was not on the system yet, and to ‘be patient’ as there were severe backlogs due to Covid and that the Council was changing their systems. The Committee noted that in his written response to the ARB, the Registered Person provided evidence that ZAP’s previous three applications to the Council had taken between 13 and 17 months and that he had received apologies from the Council for the delay. The Committee noted that the Registered Person confirmed this in his oral evidence. The Committee therefore accepted that given the circumstances that existed at the time, it was reasonable for the Registered Person to accept what he was told by the Council when he first contacted them.

119. The Committee had regard to the timeline for Project B set out at paragraph 93(i) – (xxi) above. The Committee noted that ultimately, the planning application was not received by the Council until 20 January 2023. This was after Referrer 2 had informed the Registered Person that she contacted the Council directly in September 2022 and was informed on 26 September 2022 that there was no record of her application. The Committee noted that it was only after receiving this information from Referrer 2, that the Registered Person stated that it was his view that there had been a problem with the Council receiving the application from the digital planning portal. The Committee noted that there was then a further 4-month delay until the application was re-submitted and received by the Council.

120. The Committee noted that it did not have any documentary evidence of the steps taken by the Registered Person to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application between 14 June 2021 and 20 January 2023.

121. The Committee noted that in his oral evidence, the Registered Person told the Committee that he had not sent any emails to either the Planning Portal Team or to the Council. It noted that the Registered Person stated that because no planning officer had been assigned, he could not email the planning officer directly. The Committee further noted that in cross-examination, the Registered Person accepted that there was a generic planning support email address available at the Council but that he had chosen not to use it. The Committee took into account that both Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 had successfully used this generic planning support email address to ascertain that the Council had no record of their planning applications.

122. The Committee noted that in his oral evidence, the Registered Person told the Committee that all of his contact with the Council had been by telephone. He described this as a frustrating process as he would often be expected to wait on hold for several hours which was not practicable. He stated that when he did speak to somebody at the Council, he would ask about the progress of the applications in relation to Project A and Project B. He stated that he was repeatedly told that the applications were not yet “in the system” and that should be patient. He stated that he was told that the delay was due to the backlog and difficulties arising from Covid. The Committee noted that in some of his emails to Referrer 1, he referenced his “weekly check” with the Council. However, in his oral evidence, the Registered Person did not suggest that he was calling the Council this frequently but told the Committee he was calling the Council regularly when he had the time to do so given the other demands on his time.

123. The Committee noted that the Registered Person did not produce any documentary evidence in relation to the telephone calls. He told the Committee that he had tried to obtain the itemised billing for his telephone but was told that it was not available as it was over 12 months ago. The Registered Person also told the Committee that he did not keep a written record or log of the calls he made.

124. In the Committee’s view, even allowing for the exceptional circumstances and delays arising from the Covid pandemic, the Registered Person as an experienced Architect should have taken further steps to ascertain why the planning application was not in “the system” at the Council. The Committee considered that that the Registered Person should have made appropriate enquires with both the Planning Portal Team and the Council as to why a ‘payment for application’ request had not been received. The Committee noted that save for his email of 14 June 2021, in which he told Referrer 2 that we “should hear from the council this week with request for planning fee £240”, the Registered Person appears to have taken no steps to follow this up, even though payment of this fee was a prerequisite for the application to proceed.

125. Whilst the Committee had some sympathy with the Registered Person’s evidence that he did not want to chase the Council in an aggressive manner because ultimately, the Council would be the body making the decision on the planning application, it noted from the evidence he supplied as part of his written response, he has emailed the planning department of the Council in July 2021, in respect of a wholly separate application, expressing his frustration in forthright terms.

126. Given the significant delay in this case, the Committee was of the view that the Registered Person should have done more, and at the very least he should have sent an email to the generic planning support email address at the Council, setting out the chronology of the application and his concerns, including that no ‘payment for application’ fee request had been received, the application had not been validated by the Council, and the application did not “appear on their system”.

127. The Committee had regard to the timeline and noted that when the Referrer contacted the Council directly on one occasion on 24 September 2022, she received a response 2 days later informing her that the Council had not received the planning application. Having passed this information to the Registered Person, the application was submitted and received by the Council on 20 January 2023. The Committee noted that it was granted on 11 April 2023, just over 11 weeks later.

128. The Committee was satisfied that had the Registered Person taken adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the application prior to Referrer 2 having contacted the Council, that he could have found out the same information that she did and therefore may have been able to reduce the significant delay that occurred.

129. In reaching its decision, the Committee noted that during his closing submissions, the Registered Person referred the Committee to the provisions in Clause 9.2 of the RIBA ‘Concise Professional Services Contract 2018 for Architectural Services’, which provides that the Respondent may suspend or terminate performance of any or all of the services and other obligations under the contract by giving the Complainant at least 7 days’ written notice and stating the grounds on which it intends to do so. He submitted that the Covid pandemic amounted to grounds to invoke this clause.

130. However, the Committee noted that in his written responses to the ARB and in his oral evidence to the Committee, the Registered Person had made no mention of this clause in the contract, nor had he made any mention of purporting to serve written notice to Referrer 2 of his intention to suspend or terminate performance of any or all of the services and other obligations under the contract.

131. In the circumstances, the Committee determined that the Registered Person’s submissions in this regard had no merit.

132. Having regard to all the above matters, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he did not take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project B.

133. The Committee reached this decision without relying upon the evidence of the Registered Person’s previous regulatory finding in support of the ARB’s case.

134. The Committee therefore found Particular 2(b)(ii) proved.

Particular 2(b)(iii) PROVED

In respect of Project B, the Registered Person: (b) Failed to act without undue delay contrary to Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code in that he: (i) Did not keep Referrer 2 adequately informed about the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project B.

135. The Committee noted that although Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code is referred to in the stem of the allegation, Standard 6.3 (as set out above) relates specifically to the expectation for an Architect to keep their client informed of the progress of work.

136. In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account, The Registered Person’s written representations and oral evidence in relation to the impact of the Covid pandemic, and the difficulties and extra pressure this placed upon him at the time of Project A. The Committee also had regard to the Registered Person’s evidence that during the relevant time period, Referrer 2 was overseas in Jamaica for approximately one year.

137. However, in the Committee’s view, having regard to the timeline for Project B set out at paragraph 93(i) – (xxi) above, the Registered had very limited contact with Referrer 2. The Committee noted that after 14 June 2021, the next email from the Registered Person was not until 24 August 2022. In her witness statement, Referrer 2 stated that she did not receive any correspondence from the Registered Person for a year. As a result of the lack of information from the Registered Person, Referrer 2 stated that she contacted the Council directly in September 2022 and discovered that there was no record of her planning application. The Committee noted that Referrer 2 informed the Registered Person of this on 26 September 2022, and that on 7 October 2022 she asked the Registered Person to re-submit the planning application. The Committee noted that the application was not received by the Council until 20 January 2023. It further noted that no explanation for this further delay was provided to Referrer 2.

138. The Committee considered that even if there were times when the Registered Person did not have any updated information from the Council to give to Referrer 2, he should nevertheless have kept her informed of the steps he was continuing to take in order to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning application. Furthermore, the Registered Person was aware that Referrer 2 was unfamiliar with the planning process, and that for personal reasons relating to the purpose behind Project B, she was anxious that it be dealt with expeditiously. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that that the Registered Person did not keep Referrer 2 adequately informed about the status and/or progress of the planning application for Project B.

139. The Committee also had regard to the Registered Person’s closing submissions in relation to this particular and to Particular 2(b)(iii), in which he submitted that “I actually, on the weight of the evidence, I have to admit guilt here and say it’s not good enough”.

140. The Committee therefore found Particular 2(b)(iii) proved.

 

Decision on Unacceptable Professional Conduct

141. Having found particulars (1)(b), (1)(c), 2(a), (2)(b)(ii), and2(b)(iii) of the Allegation proved, the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to UPC.

142. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter and from the Registered Person.

143. The Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct in particulars 1(b) and 2(b)(ii) breached Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code. She submitted that in respect of both particulars, the Registered Person’s failure to take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning applications persisted for over a year and resulted in a delay to both planning applications being granted. She submitted that Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 had some urgency with the projects and that the delay caused considerable stress to both Referrers. She submitted that the breaches of Standard 6.2 was serious.

144. In relation to particulars 1(c) and 2(b)(iii), the Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct breached Standard 6.3 of the Architects Code. She submitted that the Registered Person had failed to keep Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 adequately informed about the status and/or progress of the planning applications for significant periods of time; in the case of Referrer 1 for periods of several months, and in the case of Referrer 2 for over a year. She submitted that the Registered Person also failed to respond at all to several emails from Referrer 1 asking the Registered Person for an update. The Presenter submitted that given the delay to the planning applications, it was even more important that the Registered Person kept both referrers updated, and that his failure to do so caused them both more stress.

145. In relation to particular 2(a), the Presenter submitted that this amounted to a serious breach of Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code. She submitted that the provision of full terms of engagement in writing was essential for both the Registered Person and Referrer 2 so that they were both aware of their rights and obligations under the terms of the written agreement.

146. The Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s proven conduct amounted to UPC.

147. The Registered Person told the Committee that he was severely disappointed by the Committee’s findings of fact.

148. In relation to particulars 1(b) and 2(b)(ii), the Registered Person submitted that these matters took place during the Covid period. He stated that this was an exceptional time, and that people were furloughed. He submitted that this amounted to “force majeure”. He submitted that the Council was providing a ridiculously poor service. He submitted that he did what was reasonable in the context of the Covid pandemic. He submitted that every client has an urgency and that he had completed the necessary work to submit the planning applications within 14 days. He submitted that when he contacted the Council, he was told to “be patient” and he accepted this as he did not want to be aggressive and to provoke them. The Registered Person referred the Committee to the witness statement of Ms Lily Matthews-Cook. He submitted that Kingsley Napley and the ARB made 41 attempts to get a response from the Council. He submitted that Referrer 1 was fortunate to get a response when she contacted the Council in September 2022. He submitted that when Referrer 1’s planning application progressed in October 2022, that he had physically done nothing. He submitted that it was his belief that the Council knew that they had “messed up” and that they reacted under pressure. He submitted that his conduct did not amount to a breach of Standard 6.2 of the Architects Code.

149. The Registered Person submitted that in respect of particular 2(a) he had provided Referrer 2 with his terms and conditions through the Harvest software platform on 4 May 2021. He submitted that in the modern day, there was an assumption that people can open emails and attachments. He submitted that he had used the same method with Referrer 1 and that she had received the documents. The Registered Person asked rhetorically, ‘is it contrary to the ARB’s standards to send terms of engagement by email or by using the Harvest software package which is used by many architects?’. He submitted that if it was, then ‘where is the guidance?’ He submitted that Referrer 2 had never brought it to his attention that she had not received the terms and conditions. He submitted that he would never say no to helping anyone and that if Referrer 2 had asked for a hard copy of the terms and conditions then he would have provided her with a copy. He submitted that his conduct did not amount to a breach of Standard 4.4.

150. In relation to particulars 1(c) and 2(b)(iii), the Registered Person stated that ‘I ask myself how I would feel as a first-time client, and how it feels to receive no update or response.’ He submitted that his experience of trying to obtain updates from the Council had left him with an “unsatisfactory, empty feeling”. He submitted that in hindsight, the fact that there had been no update to the planning applications should have been better communicated to Referrer 1 and Referrer 2. He submitted that during Covid, people were furloughed, lots of people were not working and there were often periods lasting months when there was no information. He submitted that he was not getting paid to chase the Council and could not afford to spend half a day on hold, although he did so many times. He submitted that he had empathy and sympathy for Referrer 1 and Referrer 2, and that he had returned his professional fees to both as a gesture of goodwill. He submitted that at the time, during the unusual circumstances of the Covid pandemic, he thought he had done enough, but that in the cold light of day, he was not professional enough.

151. The Registered Person submitted that his proven conduct did not amount to UPC.

152. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair, which was given in open session.

153. 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.

154. 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.

155. The Committee further noted that Misconduct, which is akin to UPC, was defined in the case of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1 AC 311 as: “a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”.

156. In this case, the standards required to be followed by the Registered Person are contained in the Architects Code 2017.

157. The Committee recognised that not every shortcoming on the part of an architect, nor failure to comply with the provisions of the Code, will necessarily result in a finding of UPC. However, a failure to follow the guidance of the Code, whether in one’s professional or private life, is a factor that will be taken into account should it be necessary to examine the conduct or competence of an architect.

158. The Committee noted that any failing must be serious. Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin).

159. The Committee had regard to the case of Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin) and noted that for a finding of UPC to be made, “a degree of moral blameworthiness on the part of the registrant likely to convey a degree of opprobrium to the ordinary intelligent citizen” is required.

160. The Committee also had regard to the case of Calhaem v GMC [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin) and noted: (1) Mere negligence does not constitute “misconduct”. Nevertheless, and depending upon the circumstances, negligent acts or omissions which are particularly serious may amount to “misconduct”, and (2) A single negligent act or omission is less likely to cross the threshold of “misconduct” than multiple acts or omissions. Nevertheless, and depending upon the circumstances, a single negligent act or omission, if particularly grave, could be characterised as “misconduct”.

161. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s conduct in the factual particulars found proved breached Standard 4.4, Standard 6.2 and Standard 6.3 of the Architects Code:

Standard 4.4

“4.4 You are expected to ensure that before you undertake any professional work
you have entered into a written agreement with the Complainant 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.

 

 

Standard 6.2

“6.2 You should carry out your professional work without undue delay and, so far is reasonably practicable, in accordance with any time-scale and cost limits agreed with your client.”

Standard 6.3

“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.”

162. Turning first to particular 2(a), contrary to the premise of the Registered Person’s submissions, the Committee did not find this proved on the basis that the Registered person had chosen to send the terms of engagement by email using the Harvest software. Rather, as set out in its reasons above, the Committee found this particular proved on the basis that by 11 May 2021, the Registered Person had been made aware by Referrer 2 that she had not received the email that he had sent using the Harvest software on 4 May 2021. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person should have realised that not only did this mean that Referrer 2 had not received a copy of the invoice, but that she had also not received the two attachments to the email including the RIBA ‘Concise Professional Services Contract 2018 for Architectural Services’. When the Registered Person emailed Referrer 2 on 11 May 2021, he attached a copy of the invoice together with two other attachments, but he did not attach a copy of the RIBA ‘Concise Professional Services Contract 2018 for Architectural Services’. In the Committee’s view, the Registered was under a duty to ensure that Referrer 2 had received a copy of his terms of engagement, either by email or in hard copy, so that he, and Referrer 2 could enter into a written agreement as required by Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code.

163. In the Committee’s view this does amount to a breach of Standard 4.4, but in the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee was of the view that it was, because of an oversight on the part of the Registered Person who had not considered that because Referrer 2 had not received the email of 4 May 2021, that she had not received the RIBA ‘Concise Professional Services Contract 2018 for Architectural Services’. The Committee was therefore of the view that this breach of the Architects Code was not sufficiently serious of itself, to amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

164. In relation particulars 1(b) and 2(b)(i), the Committee was of the view that in both cases, the Registered Person’s failure to take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning applications over a prolonged period amounted to a significant breach of Standard 6.2. The Committee acknowledged that these matters occurred during the exceptional circumstances created by the Covid pandemic, but for the reasons given at the fact-finding stage, it found that the Registered Person could and should have done more. In particular, he could have sent emails to the Council and/or the Planning Portal Team. In the Committee’s view, it should not have required the Referrers to obtain information from the Council directly, before the Registered Person realised that neither application had been received by the Council. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s conduct fell below the standard expected of a registered Architect and was sufficiently serious to amount to UPC.

165. The Committee next considered particulars 1(c) and 2(b)(iii). The Committee was of the view that in both cases, the Registered Person’s failure to keep Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 adequately informed about the status and/ or progress of their planning applications amounted to a significant breach of Standard 6.3. In the Committee’s view, even if there was no update from the Council, the Registered Person should have nevertheless provided regular updates to Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 explaining the position. The Committee noted that not only did the Registered Person make no contact with Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 for extended periods, but that he also failed to respond to emails from Referrer 1 requesting an update from him. The Committee noted that the Registered Person now accepts that “in the cold light of day I don’t think I was professional enough”. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s conduct fell below the standard expected of a registered Architect and was sufficiently serious to amount to UPC.
166. For the reasons set out above, the Committee found the Registered Person guilty of UPC.

Decision on Sanction

167. Having found the Registered Person guilty of UPC, the Committee considered whether to impose a sanction, and if so, which one.

168. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter and from the Registered Person.

169. The Presenter referred the Committee to paragraph 5.3 of the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance. She submitted that there were three aggravating factors. Firstly, the Presenter submitted that there was a pattern of poor conduct involving two clients. Secondly, she submitted that the Registered Person has a lack of sufficient insight. In respect of particulars 1(c) and 2(b)(iii), she submitted that the Registered Person has demonstrated some insight into his failings, however in respect of particulars 1(b) and 2(b)(ii) the Registered Person does not accept those matters and continues to make reference to extenuating circumstances. Thirdly, the Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s previous disciplinary history for a similar allegation was an aggravating factor. The Presenter further submitted that there were no mitigating factors.

170. The Presenter submitted that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was a matter for the Committee.

171. The Registered Person referred the Committee to his 32-page mitigation bundle, which included:

i. Testimonials from seven character witnesses who had collaborated with the Registered Person on projects between 2020 and 2025;
ii. A list of awards and prizes received by the Registered Person;
iii. A list of mitigating factors;
iv. Submissions in relation to the impact of these proceedings on the Registered Person’s health and personal finances; and
v. The Registered Person’s reflections.

172. The Committee decided that any references to the Registered Person’s health should be heard in private in accordance with Rule 34 of the Rules. In reaching this decision, the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s right to privacy outweighed the public interest in those parts of the hearing relating to his health being conducted in public.

173. The Registered Person submitted that although the Committee is considering four allegations, Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 were best friends and that Referrer 1 recommended ZAP to Referrer 2. He submitted that Referrer 2 had limited proficiency in using computers and using email and that Referrer 1 took the lead and handled correspondence in respect of both projects. He submitted that the Committee should therefore approach its decision on the basis that there are 2 allegations.

174. The Registered Person provided the Committee with details of his training, professional background, and career history and referred the Committee to the prestigious awards that he has won. He told the Committee that throughout his 25-year career, he has always adopted the professional strategy to do the best for his client.

175. The Registered Person explained that ZAP was a small practice and that he was the only registered architect. He told the Committee that occasionally he would employ freelance workers if additional resources were required. He submitted that the matters giving rise to these proceedings occurred during Covid-19, an unprecedented period when there were widespread delays within planning departments, particularly at Haringey Council. He referred the Committee to evidence of this, previously provided in his responses to the ARB, and to press cuttings contained in the mitigation bundle. The Registered Person made extensive submissions in respect of why the planning system was not fit for purpose and of how this was exacerbated during Covid-19. The Registered Person also made detailed submissions regarding the systemic challenges facing architects today.

176. In relation to particulars 1(b) and 2(b)(ii), the Registered Person submitted that he struggled to take responsibility for these matters. He submitted that he had made telephone calls to the Council but acknowledged that he had no telephone logs or records of calls made to support this. He referred the Committee to correspondence he had received from EE (his telecoms provider), explaining that itemised billing was no longer available for the relevant time period. He submitted that he now wished that he had sent emails to the Council, even though he believed that they would not have progressed matters, because at least he would now have had a record of his actions. He submitted that in relation to both Project A and Project B, he undertook the work in a very timely manner, attended the premises and treated Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 with grace, kindness and generosity. He submitted that both received planning permission without compromise to his designs. He further submitted that the voluntary return of fees in full to both clients, in recognition of the poor service given, was a reflection of his integrity in this matter.

177. In relation to particulars 1(c) and 2(b)(iii), the Registered Person accepted that after he had submitted their planning applications through the Planning Portal, his communication with Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 was not good enough. He referred the Committee to his written reflections where he stated “I struggled to provide regular updates when there was nothing new to share – but I now recognise that silence, however understandable from my perspective, can be distressing and unacceptable to a client. I acknowledge that I could have done more to reassure and inform, even when there was a void of information. That was a failing I accept fully.”

178. When asked questions by the Committee, the Registered Person also explained that during this period he was working on projects overseas in both the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He submitted that during this period he had not been checking his emails regularly and that this could have contributed to his failure to respond to emails from Referrer 1, however, he accepted that this was not acceptable.

179. The Registered Person informed the Committee that these matters have “deeply impacted” him, both professionally and personally. He told the Committee how his physical health and his relationship with his wife have been adversely affected. He explained that as a result of these matters, his primary employment is now at a University in the United Kingdom where he is teaching architecture four days each week. He told the Committee that apart from ongoing projects, ZAP intends to only take on one large commercial project each year. He told the Committee that he is no longer undertaking small-scale domestic residential projects. The Registered Person also informed the Committee of the changes he has made to his practice. He explained how he has introduced a new IT system that logs calls and correspondence with timestamped records linked to specific projects and tasks, and that he now maintains a detailed call log for every project, as well as comprehensive correspondence and risk tracking registers. The Registered Person told the Committee that he understood how essential these are, both to his clients and to maintaining professional accountability. The Registered Person also explained to the Committee that he now spends the periods 7-8.00am and 5-6.00pm each day reviewing and responding to emails and other correspondence.

180. In reaching its decision, the Committee had regard to all the evidence provided to it and took into account the submission made by the Presenter and the Registered Person. The Committee had regard to and applied the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance (2022) published by the ARB and accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair.

181. The Committee reminded itself that the primary purpose of sanctions is to protect members of the public, to maintain the integrity of the profession, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and competence. It has borne in mind that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. In reaching its decision, the Committee has taken into account the Registered Person’s interests and the need to act proportionately.

182. The Committee noted that the Act does not require the Committee to impose a sanction in every case where a guilty finding is reached. If it decides to impose a sanction, then the sanctions available to the Committee are:

i. A Reprimand;
ii. A Penalty Order;
iii. A Suspension Order (for a maximum of two years); and
iv. Erasure.

183. In accordance with the Sanctions Guidance, the Committee first considered the seriousness of the case.

184. The Committee identified the following aggravating factors:

i. A pattern of poor conduct involving two clients (Referrer 1 and Referrer 2) over a prolonged period.
ii. A lack of insight into his failure to take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the planning applications in relation to Project A and Project B.
iii. The Registered Person’s previous disciplinary finding in 2018, in respect of a similar allegation.

185. The Committee identified the following mitigating factors:

i. The Registered Person has demonstrated some insight into his failure to keep his clients updated about the status and/or progress of their planning applications. In particular, during his evidence to the Committee he accepted particulars 1(c) and 2(b)(iii) of the allegation. He has also reflected on the impact of his conduct on Referrer 1 and Referrer 2.
ii. The Registered Person has demonstrated some remorse for his conduct. As a gesture of goodwill, the Registered Person voluntarily returned the professional fees paid to him by Referrer 1 and Referrer 2. During the hearing he expressed his apologies to both Referrer 1 and Referrer 2.
iii. The matters occurred during the unprecedented challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic.
iv. The Registered Person has taken remedial action to prevent repetition. He has changed the nature of his practice, now only dealing with large commercial projects, he has implemented new IT systems to log telephone calls, emails and other correspondence, and he now allocates specific time each day to review and reply to emails and other correspondence.
v. The Registered Person provided seven impressive testimonials.

186. In the Committee’s view, the finding of UPC involving the Registered Person’s repeated failures to take adequate steps to ascertain the status and/or progress of the two planning applications, and his failure to respond to emails from Referrer 1 and Referrer 2 and not keep them updated is serious for the reasons previously given within this determination. Furthermore, the Committee was mindful that the Registered Person has a previous disciplinary finding against him in 2018 for a very similar allegation to the matters currently under consideration. However, the Committee noted the impressive content of the testimonials provided by other professionals who have collaborated with the Registered Person on multiple projects between 2020 and 2025. In particular, the Committee noted that not only did these character witnesses speak highly of the Registered Person’s design skills, but also of his professionalism and responsiveness.

187. Having regard to the above and taking into account the specific aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case, the Committee considered that Registered Person’s UPC was not at the higher end of the spectrum of such cases.

188. The Committee accepted that these proceedings have had a significant impact upon the Registered Person, not only in terms of his health and private life, but also professionally. The Committee noted that the Registered Person has chosen to now work primarily in academia, teaching architecture at a University in the United Kingdom. He has retained his practice, ZAP Architecture, but he is no longer undertaking small-scale domestic residential projects. Instead, he is now planning to undertake one large commercial project each year. In addition, the Committee took into account the changes that the Registered Person has implemented in his practice, in particular the use of the Monday.com software package to automatically log telephone calls, emails and other correspondence, and the time he now sets aside each day to review and answer emails and other correspondence. Having regard to these matters, the Committee was satisfied that the risk of repetition of the conduct leading to the finding of UPC in this case was low. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that a sanction was not required on the grounds of public protection.

189. As previously found by the Committee, the Registered Person has breached a number of the Standards in the Code. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s conduct has damaged public confidence and has brought the profession into disrepute.

190. The Committee therefore determined that it should consider whether to impose a sanction to uphold public confidence in the profession, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and competence.

191. The Committee recognised that it is not necessary to impose a sanction in every case where there has been a finding of UPC. However, in the Committee’s view, the UPC in this case is too serious for it to impose no sanction.

192. Having determined that it is necessary to impose a sanction, the Committee considered each available sanction in ascending order of severity.

193. 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 confidence in the reputation of the profession or to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.

194. The Committee therefore went on to consider the imposition of a Penalty Order. The Committee had regard to the list of factors identified in the Sanctions Guidance as to when this may be an appropriate sanction and noted that this sanction may be considered where the offence is too serious to warrant a Reprimand, there is evidence of limited insight or remorse, and the Registered Person has sufficient financial resources.

195. 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 that therefore the main purpose of the sanction was not to protect the public but to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. The Committee was satisfied that a Penalty Order would meet those public interest requirements.

196. The Committee noted that its powers are limited to fines of up to level 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences, currently set at £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.

197. 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 mitigation available to the Registered Person, including his remorse, his partial insight, the steps he has taken to remediate his failings, and the evidence contained in the testimonials, the Committee was persuaded that it would be disproportionate to impose a Suspension Order in his case.

198. The Committee therefore imposes a Penalty Order in the sum of £2,500. This must be paid by the Registered Person by 30 June 2025.