Mr Simon Devlin

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

SIMON DEVLIN (073650C)
_______________

Present:
Neil Dalton (Chair)
Robert Dearman (Architect Member)
Peter Baker (Lay Member)
_______________

Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Simon Devlin (“the Registered Person”).

A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The order is a reprimand.

In respect of the charges against Simon Devlin (“the Registered Person”) (073650C):

The Registered Person:

a. Accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against him in the terms set out below; and

b. Confirms that he has been offered the opportunity to appear before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee to present his case, but has foregone his right to do so.

The Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against the Registered Person in the terms set out below.

The Allegation:

The allegation made against the Registered Person is that he is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct. In support of the allegation, the ARB relies upon the following particulars:

1. The Architect failed to provide an appropriate response to the Referrer’s complaint, contrary to standard 10.2 of the Architects Code.

Statement of agreed facts:

1. The Registered Person is a registered architect at Devlin Architects (“the firm”).

2. The allegation against the Registered Person arose following a complaint to the ARB by Chris Johnson (“the Referrer”) dated 4 January 2025.

The Property

3. The relevant property (“the Property”) is owned by the Referrer and renovations were due to take place. This was to include the main building of the Property being expanded and renovated, a conversion of an outbuilding, an upgrade of an existing summer house, and the construction of a car port and gate with associated landscaping (“the Project”).

Complaint

4. The Referrer instructed the Registered Person in April 2021 to assist with the Project and the Registered Person’s work on the Project commenced. The Referrer decided to de-instruct the Registered Person on 3 June 2024 and the Referrer wrote a letter of complaint to the Registered Person on 26 August 2024, detailing aspects of the Registered Person’s work that the Referrer was not content with. This included the construction budget, poor communication, mishandling of consultants and RIBA stage 4 delays. The Referrer also set out the impact on him both financially and personally and asked for the complaint to be dealt with using Devlin Architect’s complaints procedure or Alternative Dispute Resolution. A detailed response was also requested within 10 working days. The letter was sent via email.

5. On 27 August 2024, the Registered Person responded and said that the Referrer’s allegations were without merit and that he was confident in his legal position. On 1 October 2024, the Referrer sent a further letter to follow up on his complaint letter and reminded the Registered Person of his duties under the ARB’s code of conduct to provide a written response. Again, this letter was sent via email. The Registered Person responded on 3 October 2024, stating that he had dealt with the issues previously, and refuting the allegations made. The Registered Person confirmed he was confident in his position and that there was nothing to mediate. He confirmed he was not going to take the matter further and told the Referrer to speak to the ARB.

6. On 4 October 2024, the Referrer sent a final letter to the Registered Person via email, highlighting that matters were not discussed previously and reminding the Registered Person of the ARB’s code of conduct. The Referrer requested a written substantive response. The Referrer further requested details of Devlin Architect’s complaints process. The Registered Person did not respond to this letter.

7. The ARB notified the Registered Person of the Referrer’s complaint on 27 February 2025. The Registered Person responded on 11 March 2025. The matter was then referred to the Investigations Panel (“IP”) who found an initial case to answer and invited written submissions from both parties. The Registered Person provided further submissions on 17 June 2025.

8. After considering all submissions, the IP issued its final decision on 7 July 2025. The IP found that there was no case to answer in respect of all the Referrer’s complaints, save for the failure to provide an appropriate response to his original complaint.

Admissions:

9. The Registered Person has provided a witness statement for the PCC. In the statement, the Registered Person admits that he failed to provide an appropriate response to the Referrer’s complaint, contrary to standard 10.2 of the Architects Code. The Registered Person admits that he is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct

10. In light of the admissions above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

11. Standard 10 of the Architects Code (2017) requires an architect to deal with disputes or complaints appropriately. Specifically, Standard 10.2 states that complaints should be handled courteously and promptly at every stage, and as far as practicable in accordance with the following timescales: a) an acknowledgement within 10 working days from the receipt of a complaint; and b) a response addressing the issues raised in the initial letter of complaint within 30 days from its receipt. The Registered Person admits that he failed to handle the complaint courteously and promptly, and in accordance with the relevant timescales.

12. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of Standards 10.2 of the Code.

Disciplinary Order:

13. The Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee, with the consent of the parties and having taken account of its responsibilities to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession, makes the following disciplinary order:

a. A reprimand

14. The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions. He has also admitted that the remaining allegation amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct. He has provided a series of testimonials from clients and other professionals which comment upon his professionalism, the advice he provides, and his high standards of practice.

15. Nevertheless, the admitted allegation has the potential to diminish both the Registered Person’s reputation and that of the profession generally and therefore the parties agree that the Registered Person’s conduct is sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order. In light of the admissions, the parties agree that a reprimand is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.

16. In his witness statement, the Registered Person has set out the steps he has taken to ensure that future complaints are dealt with in an appropriate matter.