Mr Stephen Robert Ellson

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

STEPHEN ROBERT ELLSON

(060144F)

Held as a virtual hearing on:

2-4 March 2026

_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Legally Qualified Chair)
Janice Tam (PCC Architect Member)
Peter Baker (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

In this case, the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) is represented by Ms Ella Crine (‘‘the Presenter’’) instructed by ­­­­­­­­Kingsley Napley.

Mr Stephen Ellson (the ‘‘Registered Person’’) has attended this hearing and is not legally represented.

Preliminary issue

Submission of no case to answer regarding original Particular 3

1. At the outset of the first day of the hearing, the Presenter, on behalf of the ARB, sought to offer no evidence in relation to Particular 3 (set out below)

3) The Registered Person failed to notify his PI insurance provider of a relevant circumstance/claim, in accordance with the conditions of his PI insurance policy.

2. The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) Rules 2022 (the Rules) do not permit for particulars to be disposed of in this manner. At the suggestion of the Chair, it was agreed that the matter would need to be resolved by way of a submission at the close of the ARB case that there was insufficient evidence for the particular to continue (in accordance with the principles derived from R v Galbraith (1981) 1 WLR 1039.)

3. The ARB sought to discontinue Particular 3 in light of an e-mail from the Registered Person’s insurer confirming that the concerns raised by the Referrer were not a notifiable event, and so there was no obligation under the terms of his Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) cover to report the Referrer’s complaint or the fee dispute. In light of this new information, ARB conceded that Particular 3 was no longer viable.

4. At the conclusion of the ARB case the Committee found that the evidence in support of Particular 3 was inherently weak and consequently should not proceed any further.

Allegation

The Registered Person faces an allegation of unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”) in that:

1) 1: The Registered Person failed to provide adequate written terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code

2) 2. The Registered Person did not have a written complaints handling procedure in place, contrary to Standard 10.1 of the Architects Code, and therefore was unable to provide a copy when it was requested by the Referrer

5. The Registered Person denied Particulars 1, 2 and 3* (*see paragraphs 1 to 4 above).

Background

6. The Registered Person, a director at Brock Charles Architects, was engaged by Mrs Laura Satchwell (“the Referrer”), in February 2024 to assess development options for her property. Following initial meetings, the Registered Person was instructed and his terms of engagement confirmed via an emailed “fee offer” and began work, with fees outlined for three stages: Stage 1 preparation of plans, Stage 2 proposals, and Stage 3 planning application submission. The fee offer purported to form the written terms of engagement as are required under Standard 4.4 of The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice (the Code) published 2017.

7. Work progressed through staged invoicing, but concerns were raised by the Referrer about the quality of drawings and the advice provided. The Registered Person made amendments to the drawings and applied for planning permission as planned in April 2024. A further fee offer for stage 4 (completing building drawings and submission to building control) was submitted to the Referrer on 4 June 2024. Planning permission was granted on 20 June 2024 however issues persisted between the Referrer and the Registered Person regarding planning application quality and layout changes.

8. By July 2024, the Referrer disputed the stage 4 invoice and requested evidence of the Registered Person’s Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) cover. The Referrer subsequently terminated the contract and continued to dispute the outstanding payment for stage 4 and sought the Registered Person’s written complaints procedure, which was not provided. The Registered Person offered to revise drawings and make fee adjustments and eventually suggested raising concerns with RIBA. The dispute was not resolved.

9. In October 2024, the Registered Person brought a case to the small claims court seeking payment for the unpaid stage 4 invoice. The Referrer submitted a formal complaint to ARB in November 2024. The civil litigation remains outstanding and has been adjourned pending the completion of the proceedings before the PCC. Although connected, the civil litigation is primarily concerned with matters that do not form part of the allegations before the PCC.

10. The Registered Person responded to ARB during the investigation of the complaint and denied allegations that his terms of engagement were inadequate, stating that his practice emphasised clarity and simplicity in the content of fee offers. He believed his clients found the standard RIBA Plan of Work confusing and maintained that he had complied with Standard 4.4 of the Code, in that the necessary information on suspension, termination, and cancellation rights were implied within the fee offer. The Registered Person also confirmed that he had continuous professional indemnity insurance (PII) since 2006.

11. The Registered Person indicated that his ARB registration and number could be found by clients on the ARB website and, due to the small size of the Practice (two directors only), mediation or arbitration was impractical but could be accessed externally if needed. He confirmed that his firm offered no alternative dispute resolution (ADR) scheme. The Registered Person explained his belief that a conflict of interest would exist in an internal complaint handling process due to the firm’s small size and instead he would direct unresolved complaints to the relevant professional body.

Stage 1 – Findings of Fact

12. The PCC Rules make it clear that the burden of proof at the fact-finding stage is on the ARB. So, it is for the ARB to prove the factual particulars set out in the allegation. It is not for the Registered Person to disprove them.

13. The ARB must prove the charges on the balance of probabilities, another way of putting that is, “is it more likely than not that the allegations occurred as alleged?”

14. In coming to its findings, the Committee considered the written documentation provided by both the ARB and the Registered Person together with the oral evidence of the Referrer and the Registered Person. The Committee also took into account the submissions made by the Presenter on behalf of the ARB and of the Registered Person.

15. The Committee received and accepted the legal advice provided by the Chair.

16. The Committee then proceeded to consider each of the disputed particulars in turn and makes its findings of fact as follows. The Committee noted that there are many areas of dispute between the Registered Person and the Referrer, but this Committee is not tasked with resolving anything other than the alleged conduct as set out in the particulars.

Particular 1 – The Registered Person failed to provide adequate written terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code

17. This particular focused on the requirements of the last five bullet points set out in Standard 4.4 namely whether the Registered Person had entered into a written agreement with the client which adequately covers:

• the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, including any legal rights of cancellation;
• a statement that the architect has 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 the architect has a complaints-handling procedure available on request;
• that the architect is registered with the Architects Registration Board and that they are subject to this Code.

18. The Registered Person, in his oral evidence, set out that he was trying to follow the “spirit” of the Code and applying it to the particular circumstances of his firm when setting out the terms of engagement in his fee offer to the Referrer (and to clients generally). He explained that he was one of two directors at the firm and there were no other members of staff. He was the only registered architect.

19. During cross examination he was referred by the Presenter to the introductory paragraphs of the Code which state, “You are expected to be guided in your professional conduct…by the spirit of the Code as well as its express terms.” He conceded that he had not considered the express terms of the Code as fully as he ought to.

20. The Committee considered each of the five points within Standard 4.4 that the ARB alleges were inadequately covered in the fee offer/terms of engagement sent to the Referrer.

21. The Committee found that the terms of engagement in the fee offer did not sufficiently address provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement, nor did they include any reference to the client’s legal rights of cancellation. The Registered Person stated that termination was implied by the stage payments, as clients were not obliged to proceed beyond each completed stage. However, there was no express provision for suspension, termination during a stage, or the legal right to cancel. The Committee determined that such terms should be explicitly set out for client clarity, and their absence rendered the fee offer inadequate in this regard.

22. The fee offer did not include any statement confirming that the Registered Person had adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by the Architects Registration Board (ARB). While the Registered Person did hold Professional Indemnity Insurance at all relevant times and produced evidence of this when requested, this information was not incorporated into the terms of engagement and were inadequate in this regard.

23. The Registered Person confirmed that his fee offer did not contain “confirmation of the existence of any Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes that the contract is subject to and how they might be accessed” as set out in Standard 4.4. He explained that he had considered ADR but concluded that his firm could not offer ADR due to its small size and ADR would not be appropriate for his contracts. Therefore, ADR options did not exist in respect of the Registered Person’s contracts.

24. The Committee finds that ADR is not a mandatory requirement for a complaint handling procedure. Standard 10.3 refers to ADR being encouraged “if appropriate.” As there was no ADR involved, there could be no requirement under Standard 4.4 for the Registered Person to refer to “the existence” of ADR in the terms of engagement contained within the Registered Person’s fee offer. Therefore, the Committee finds that the Registered Person was not in breach of Standard 4.4 in respect of this element.

25. The Committee was satisfied that the fee offer did not mention the availability of a complaints handling procedure upon request. The Registered Person admitted that he did not have such a written procedure, despite Standard 10.1 of the Code expressly requiring one. Even if Standard 4.4 could be interpreted to apply to non-written procedures, the fee offer made no reference to any complaints handling process. The Registered Person suggested that relevant information could have been found on his website, but the Committee observed that the fee offer did not direct clients to the website. The Committee found the terms of engagement inadequate in this respect.

26. The Registered Person conceded that his fee offer did not set out that he was registered with the Architects Registration Board and that he is subject to the Code. The email containing the fee offer did not contain any reference to the Registered Person being registered with ARB or mention his registration number. The Committee is satisfied that the terms of engagement set out in the fee offer were also inadequate in this regard.

Particular 2 – The Registered Person did not have a written complaints handling procedure in place, contrary to Standard 10.1 of the Architects Code, and therefore was unable to provide a copy when it was requested by the Referrer.

27. The Committee determined that the Registered Person did not have a written complaints handling procedure in place. This conclusion was based on the Registered Person’s own admission during the proceedings. Initially, the Registered Person maintained that he was not required to possess such a document. However, as the evidence progressed, he acknowledged the necessity of a written procedure in accordance with Code and the associated guidance issued by the ARB. By the end of his evidence, he confirmed that he was actively drafting a complaints-handling procedure to comply with these requirements.

28. In summary, The Committee finds Particulars 1 and 2 proved on the basis set out above.

Stage 2 – Unacceptable Professional Conduct

29. The Committee went on from the fact-finding stage to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct in relation to the findings of Particulars 1 and 2 amounted to Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC).

30. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter on behalf of the ARB, from the Registered Person and accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair. The Committee reminded itself that a finding of UPC is a matter for its own independent judgement having regard to any facts found proved. There is no burden or standard of proof.

31. 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. 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.”

32. The standards required to be followed by the Registered Person are contained in The Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017. 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.

33. The Committee also reminded itself of the relevance of drawing a distinction between a single act and multiple acts of concern, “a single negligent act or omission is less likely to cross the threshold of misconduct than multiple acts or omissions…” (R (Calhaem) v General Medical Council [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin).)

34. 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. The Committee also recognised that any failing must be serious and that seriousness needs to be given proper weight, as described by Collins J in Nandi v GMC (2004) EWHC 2317 (Admin) as “conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

35. Standards 4.4 and 10.1 of the Code have been breached. The central question for the Committee is whether these breaches are sufficiently serious to constitute unacceptable professional conduct. Both breaches are linked, as they concern the inadequacy of information provided to a client at the outset of a contractual relationship.

36. Although the facts found proved in Particulars 1 and 2 related specifically to the Referrer, it was acknowledged by the Registered Person that his practice regarding fee offers and terms of engagement was followed across all of his clients for a number of years.

37. The Committee finds that the absence of essential information within the terms of engagement deprived clients of full and clear knowledge of their rights. There was no reference to the mechanism for suspending or terminating the contract, no mention of ARB registration, and no complaints handling process.

38. The Committee is not able to determine whether these deficiencies had any actual effect on the way matters progressed with the Referrer, but notes that they might have influenced the situation. The inability, or refusal, of Registered Person to respond to the Referrer’s requests for the written complaint procedure would have been exasperating and likely to have worsened relationships. While a formal, written internal complaint system might have resolved matters amicably, there is no guarantee of this outcome.

39. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Referrer successfully terminated the contract without having received the necessary information in the terms of engagement.

40. The Committee accepts that the Registered Person was attempting to simplify matters for his clients when reducing the content of his fee offer/terms of engagement. However, this effort at simplification went too far, leaving the Referrer unaware of their rights, which would have been especially important in a situation where things have gone wrong. Such missing information included access to a written complaint procedure, reference to ARB as regulator, details of the PII provider, and, most importantly, the client’s legal right to terminate the contract.

41. The common theme in these deficiencies is the absence of requisite safeguards for clients if concerns arise, which places clients at an avoidable disadvantage and represents a serious falling short of the standards expected of an architect.

42. For the reasons set out above the Committee is satisfied that the facts found proved amount to unacceptable professional conduct

Stage 3 – Sanction

43. Having found the Registered Person’s actions amounted to UPC, the Committee then went on to consider what, if any, sanction to impose in this case. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter, on behalf of ARB, and from the Registered Person. The Committee accepted the legal advice from the Chair and took careful note of the ARB Sanctions Guidance (the Guidance) adopted by the PCC from 1 April 2022.

44. The Committee had regard to the public interest which includes the need to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and ARB and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, behaviour, and competence.

45. The Committee was mindful that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect and any sanction imposed must balance the rights of the Registered Person against the need to uphold proper standards and protect the public.

46. The Committee first assessed the seriousness of the finding of UPC with reference to the facts found proved during the hearing and by considering the competing aggravating and mitigating factors.

47. The Committee noted the aggravating factors submitted by the Presenter on behalf of the ARB which included the significant effect on the Referrer in not having a written complaints procedure and terms of engagement that included the mechanism to terminate the contract. The Presenter referred to the facts found proved as a “pattern of poor conduct” in that the Registered Person did not have the appropriate terms of engagement and complaints handling documentation for any of his clients for a number of years before the hearing commenced.

48. The Presenter also referred to the Registered Person’s apparent inability to acknowledge his failings and his limited insight in that he saw the Code as guidance only. This represented an apparent lack of understanding of the nature and purpose of the Code. The Presenter accepted that this should be balanced against the Registered Person’s developing insight and his late steps to rectify the deficiencies in his practice.

49. The Committee found the following mitigating factors:

• The Registered Person adopted an approach to complaint handling, but it was informal and not in written form.
• The Registered Person had attempted to resolve the dispute with LS before commencing legal action. He had engaged in appropriate and courteous correspondence with the Referrer to resolve her concerns.
• The Registered Person is of good character and had a long and unblemished record with ARB until this case.
• He demonstrated developing understanding into his shortcomings which the Presenter described as “substantial insight.”

50. The Committee considered that the Registered Person had enjoyed a career largely free of client complaints, and he had assumed that his systems were appropriate. He had been guided by the “spirit” of the Code but acknowledged that he had not fully appreciated some of the express terms contained within it. He had avoided a clear and proactive risk management strategy, preferring a reactive approach that lacked clarity.

51. Taking all of these factors together, the Committee finds that this matter falls towards the lower end of seriousness.

52. The Committee went on to consider the sanctions available to it in ascending order. It first considered whether it was appropriate to impose no sanction. Given the importance of the maintenance of public confidence and the reputation of the profession through compliance with Standards 4.4 and 10.1, this was not considered appropriate. The Guidance suggests that this course of action would be appropriate only in “exceptional circumstances” which the Committee considered did not apply to the facts of this case.

53. A Reprimand was considered next and the Committee carefully considered the list of factors that would support the appropriateness of this sanction that are contained within the Guidance. The Committee finds that there is no evidence that the Registered Person poses an ongoing unacceptable risk to the public and there is no evidence that his conduct has seriously affected his clients or the wider public.

54. The Committee noted that the previous practice of the Registered Person in the poor approach to his terms of engagement did expose clients to potential risk, but that risk has not resulted in any evidence of harm beyond that occasioned to the Referrer in this case. The Committee was satisfied that there was some adverse effect upon the Referrer but cannot identify that this was serious in nature. As found by the Committee at stages one and two, the Referrer was able to terminate the contract and received courteous and prompt responses after she raised concerns with the Registered Person. The substance of her underlying complaint about service she received from the Registered Person is beyond the scope of the Particulars of this allegation.

55. The Committee was able to find evidence of genuine insight demonstrated by the Registered Person although this had developed extremely late and was a continuing process throughout the hearing. The Registered Person persuaded the Committee that he has reflected upon his practice with a self-critical eye and has learned from the experience. He has assured the Committee that he was taking corrective steps towards the development of a written complaints handling process and in the improvement of his standard terms of engagement.

56. Although the Committee could not describe the conduct as an isolated incident, it was not deliberate in that the Registered Person had the best intentions and the interests of his clients at heart in seeking to minimise the complexity of his terms of engagement. As described earlier in stages one and two, his desire to remove complexity had also removed some of the essential safeguards that Standards 4.4 and 10.1 requires.

57. For the reasons set out above the Committee was satisfied that a formal reprimand represents a proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee reviewed the next most serious sanction, a penalty order, but did not consider that this would be proportionate in the circumstances.

58. The Committee therefore imposes a Reprimand.