Talk to us
Live Chat
Mr Thomas Guy Gresford
THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of:
THOMAS GUY GRESFORD (067011A)
_______________
Present:
Neil Dalton (Chair)
Stuart Carr (Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (Lay Member)
_______________
Decision of a Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee in respect of the charges against Thomas Gresford (“the Registered Person”)
A disciplinary order is imposed upon the Registered Person. The order is a £1,500 penalty order.
In respect of the charge against Thomas Gresford (067011A) (“the Registered Person”):
The Registered Person:
i. 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
ii. 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; and
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 Registered Person did not adequately supervise non-registered/junior members of staff;
2. The Registered Person did not provide a design in line with the client’s requirements and/or relevant technical standards
Statement of agreed facts:
1. The Registered Person is a registered architect with his own practice, Gresford Architects Limited.
2. In October 2015, Sarah and Nigel Layton (the Referrers) purchased a Grade II listed house known as Thatchings (“the Property”).
3. In September 2020, the Referrers appointed the Registered Person’s Company via the ‘Architect your Home’ website to design a kitchen extension to the Property. The Referrers provided survey drawings to the Registered Person to enable him to sketch up a scheme that could be used to get a budget cost from a Contractor.
4. On 30 November 2020, an application was submitted for planning permission and listed building consent for the kitchen extension, with approval being received on 22 September 2021.
5. Following a meeting with the Referrers, the Registered Person submitted a fee proposal for converting the barn in the garden of the Property, which was currently used as an outbuilding. The plan was to carry out the building work to the extension and the barn at the same time.
6. The drawings on the Council’s planning portal show that the majority were initialed ‘AV’, presumably standing for Abigail Verlaan, architectural assistant at Gresford Architects, who emailed the Referrers regarding the planning application.
7. On 16 September 2021, Stephan Humphrey-Gaskin (SHG), an architect who had worked briefly on the project, informed the Referrers that he was leaving Gresford Architects.
8. Another architect, Francisco Jose Gomez Cerezo (FJGC), then joined Gresford Architects and started working as project architect on the proposals.
9. In October 2021, FJGC submitted the proposed barn drawings to the Referrers for comment prior to submitting them for Planning Approval. The Referrers became concerned that basic errors on the brief had occurred including metal windows instead of timber, retaining the existing stone floor and the description of the proposals describing a playroom and flexible family living instead of a Yoga/Gym space.
10. On 14 October 2021, FJGC applied for planning permission and listed building consent for the barn conversion, with approval being received on 15 December 2021.
11. On 20 October 2021, the Registered Person submitted a fee proposal for carrying out the RIBA Stage 4 and 5 works to the kitchen extension and barn at the same time, which included an additional fee for his additional involvement.
12. Work on the tender drawings and documents started in November 2021, with the tender documents being issued at the end of February 2022.
13. On 27 February 2022, the Property burnt down whilst the Referrers were away on holiday. The thatched roof was destroyed and the Property was uninhabitable. The barn was not affected.
14. Following the fire, the Referrers were initially advised by their Loss Assessor that they did not need an architect for the reconstruction of the Property, and that they should proceed with a Structural Engineer and an Architectural Technician. After discussions, however, the Referrers decided to contact an architect friend, who was local but could not do the commission. He introduced the Referrers to Rhian Woods (RW) from Purple Architects. The Referrers proceeded to appoint RW to design the reconstruction of the Property.
15. On 26 August 2022, the Referrers sent an email to the Registered Person stating that they were well advanced with the design work for the rebuilding of their home and the tender package for the kitchen extension and barn designed by Gresford Architects would be issued at the same time as the main house reconstruction works. They also requested that the Registered Person assist with Building Control matters that they highlighted to him.
16. On 2 September 2022, the Registered Person responded stating that he considered the Referrers had decided to no longer work with Gresford Architects, and that their new architect should be able to deal with the matters highlighted.
17. On 7 September 2022, the Referrers sent a letter of complaint to Jude Tugman (JT) at ‘Architect your Home’, which he then forwarded to the Registered Person. The Referrers set out a chronology of recent correspondence with the Registered Person and set out their concerns about the drawings. They requested that the Registered Person be encouraged to complete outstanding Building Regulation points in a timely manner. On 21 September 2022, the Registered Person responded stating that he assumed their relationship had ended but was still happy to work with them until the completion of the project. However, if they disagreed with his standpoint regarding the building control compliance being issued at RIBA stage 4 he suggested mediation as a way forward.
18. The Referrers asked RW to combine her rebuilding works package with Gresford Architects’ existing drawings to form a complete package of work to be sent out to tender.
19. When RW started the above process, she discovered various issues with the kitchen tender drawings produced by Gresford Architects. RW alerted the Referrers and they asked her to look into it in more detail. On 30 September 2022, she emailed the Referrers with her initial findings, which included issues with the drainage layout, flat roof design, insulation levels of the timber external walls and floor construction, as well as conflicting information on different drawings. RW stated that the drawings could not be trusted as there were numerous basic errors.
20. The Referrers then asked RW to review the barn tender drawings and documents. On 10 October 2022, RW sent them an email having identified inconsistencies with the drawings.
21. On 24 October 2022, a meeting was held between the Registered Person and the Referrers. The Registered Person informed the Referrers that FJGC no longer worked for Gresford Architects, and that they had discovered issues with his work generally. The Registered Person said that he would review the drawings by 28 October 2022, but that a full review and set of revisions would take a month. The Referrers stated that they were under time constraints, so the Registered Person suggested issuing the existing drawings and then clarifying the drawings with the successful tender.
22. On 28 October 2022, the Registered Person sent an email to the Referrers stating that he was doing the design review, but several items regarding insulation needed to be checked with Building Control.
23. On 3 November 2022, the Referrers sent a letter to the Registered Person informing him that they had decided against tendering the existing drawings to have them repriced at a later stage. The Referrers requested an immediate refund of the stage 4 fees.
24. On 4 November 2022, the Registered Person responded to the Referrers stating that he would redraw any faulty drawing by 22 November 2022 and sooner if possible. He also noted that the Referrers had RW’s emails about his drawings for two weeks prior to contacting him on the matter, the RIBA code of conduct states that architects taking over a project should contact the previous architect which had not yet happened and if the Referrers were not satisfied with his response and proposed dates he would welcome the opportunity to engage in arbitration or mediation via the ARB or RIBA.
25. On 7 November 2022, the Referrers responded stating that they had run out of patience with the Registered Person and that they did not think mediation or arbitration would be of help, as they did not have time for it. They stated that they had engaged Purple Architects to redraw the drawings, which they could do in a shorter time frame.
26. On 7 November 2022, the Registered Person responded outlining the dispute and disagreeing with RW’s assessment of Gresford Architects’ drawings. The Registered Person said the amount claimed by the Referrers did not reflect the amount of work that may be required to rectify the areas of concern on the drawings. The Registered Person asked the Referrers to confirm if they wanted him to update the drawings or not and if they only wanted a refund he would refer the matter to his solicitors. On 8 November 2022, the Referrers sent an email to the Registered Person asking him to not do any further work on the drawings.
27. On 10 November 2022, Gresford Architects’ solicitors wrote to the Referrers outlining their opinion on the dispute and reiterating that they were willing to enter into a remediation process until 17 November 2022, after that date any legal action by the Referrers would be defended.
28. On 17 January 2023, RW wrote to the Referrers with a general statement on her concerns about the Tender drawings.
29. On 17 June 2023, the Referrers made a complaint to the ARB.
Admissions:
30. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to adequately supervise non-registered/junior members of staff and did not provide a design in line with the client’s requirements and/or relevant technical standards.
Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct
31. In light of the admissions above, the Registered Person admits that his conduct amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
32. Standard 2.1 of the Code requires an architect to be competent to carry out the professional work they undertake to do, and if they engage others to do that work they should be competent and adequately supervised. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to adequately supervise members of staff engaged to work on the project and failed to ensure that they were competent.
33. Standard 4.1 of the Code states that architects are expected to have effective systems in place to ensure that their practice is run professionally and that projects are regularly monitored and reviewed. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to have effective systems in place to ensure that the project was regularly monitored and reviewed.
34. Standard 4.2 of the Code states that architects should ensure that they are able to provide adequate professional, financial and technical resources when entering into a contract and throughout its duration. Architects should also, where appropriate, ensure they have sufficient suitably qualified and supervised staff to provide an effective and efficient service to clients. The Registered Person accepts that he failed provide adequate professional, financial and technical resources when entering into the contract with the Referrers and throughout its duration.
35. Standard 6.1 of the Code states that architects are expected to carry out their work with skill and care and in accordance with the terms of engagement. The Registered Person accepts that he failed to carry out work with due skill and care.
36. The Registered Person accepts that he is in breach of these Standards.
Disciplinary Order:
37. The Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee, with the consent of the parties and having taken account of its responsibilities to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession, makes the following disciplinary order:
a. a penalty order of £1,500.
38. The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has engaged in the regulatory process and made factual admissions. He has also admitted that these amount to Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
39. The admitted allegation has the potential to diminish both the Registered Person’s reputation and that of the profession generally and therefore the parties agree that the Registered Person’s conduct is sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order. In light of the admissions, the parties agree that a penalty order of £1,500 is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.
40. The penalty order of £1,500 is payable within 28 days (by 8 May 2025). Should the Registered Person wish to make an application to vary the payment terms then an application must be submitted to ARB for consideration by the Consent Order Panel Chair.