THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

ANNABELLE HELEN HARGREAVES TUGBY (069272G)

Held on

5-7 June 2023

At

The International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC)

1 Paternoster Lane

London

EC4M 7BQ

_______________

Present:

Emma Boothroyd (Chair)
Stuart Carr (PCC Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

 

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) was represented by Ms Kathryn Sheridan of Kingsley Napley LLP (“the Presenter”).

Mrs Annabelle Tugby (“the Registered Person”) attended this hearing and was represented by Mr Jonathan Goodwin.

 

Allegation

The Registered Person faces the following allegation:

That she is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct (UPC) based on the following particulars:

(1)   The Registered Person:

(a)   Failed to provide the client with adequate and/or timely advice in relation to copyright and/or any assignment costs;

(b)   In respect of 1(a), did so in the knowledge that the site was to be sold following the obtaining of planning approval.

(2)   The Registered Person did not deal with a complaint and/or dispute appropriately;

(3)   The Registered Person failed to ensure the client’s confidential information was protected and/or safeguarded;

(4)   The Registered Person’s actions at particular 1(a) and/or 1(b) lacked integrity.

 

Background

1. The Registered Person is a registered architect and sole Director of her own company Annabelle Tugby Architects Limited.

 

2. Miss Brenda Curran (“the Referrer”) was the owner of “Fairways” which was a large family home in a sizeable plot. In early 2019 the Referrer had decided to sell the property. The Referrer had engaged planning consultants to assist her with trying to obtain planning permission on the land for either several properties or a block of flats. The intention was to sell the property to a developer with the benefit of planning permission and the Referrer was not going to develop the site herself. The planning consultants recommended that the Referrer appoint an architect. The Referrer consulted with the Registered Person in July 2019 and sent an email enquiry on 8 July 2019 setting out her requirements.

 

3. The Registered person met with the Referrer at the property on 10 July 2019 and again set out that she was looking for a scheme that provided the best financial return as she intended to sell the site with the benefit of planning permission. The Registered person was instructed on 23 July 2019, but no formal terms and conditions were agreed at this stage.

 

4. In December 2019 the Referrer was sent a fee proposal for the full planning submission. In January 2020 the Referrer formally instructed the Registered Person to proceed with the application and requested a copy of the contract she needed to sign. No contract was provided. The Referrer also advised the Registered Person of the estate agents she would be using for the eventual sale of the property. The planning work was concluded by the Registered Person’s firm and a final invoice was sent on 17 April 2020. The planning application was made on or around 11 May 2020.

 

5. Further work was required in November and December to deal with amendments to the drawings requested as part of the planning process and this was undertaken by the Registered Person and paid for in full by the Referrer. Planning permission was granted on 4 August 2021.

 

6. The Referrer accepted an offer to purchase the site from Mr K of the developer in September 2021. As part of the pre contract enquiries a query was raised with the Referrer by the purchasers’ solicitors about whether the Referrer was able to provide a “royalty free and assignable copyright licence from the architect”.

 

7. The Referrer passed this query on to the architect in an email dated 28 September 2021 and stated that she was unaware of the issue relating to copyright licence and assignment. The Registered Person replied the following day via email, that there would be no charge for an agreement to assign the licence if the firm were retained as architects on the project by the purchaser. However, if they were replaced there would be a fee. There was no indication of how much that fee would be. The email concluded, “As they plan to engage us, I’m sure there will be no problem with this and it will be very straightforward and can be done in advance of exchange.” The Referrer responded, “Thank you Annabelle – that’s very clear and I will forward that to the developer and their solicitors through mine.”

 

8. The Registered Person replied, “Great – I spoke with Mr K earlier about my quote and briefly covered the copyright agreement with him which he has plenty of typical experience of too in the same way we have so all should be agreeable as described.”

 

9. On the 21 October 2021, the Referrer sent an email to the Registered Person requesting a draft licence. The Referrer had received a request for a licence from the solicitors for the developer as it was not agreed that the Registered Person would be retained for construction and so as a matter of caution a licence was required by the developer on completion of the sale. The Registered Person replied, “I’m not sure I follow, sorry!”.

 

10. The Referrer sent a text message to the Registered Person on 28 October 2021 asking for a confirmation letter that she had an assignable copyright licence as the developer did not wish to instruct the Registered Person.

 

11. On 28 October 2021 the Registered Person sent an email to the Referrer requesting £20,000 to “release the copyright.” The Referrer requested clarification of the amount charged and also asked for a copy of the Registered Person’s complaints procedures. The Registered Person did not reply to that email.

 

12. On 1 November 2021 the Referrer sent a further email with the draft permission sought by the developer. The Referrer explained in her email that a transfer of copyright was not required only a licence. On 2 November 2021 the Referrer sent a further email which set out her understanding of the situation and offered £1000 for the licence.

 

13. On the same day the Registered Person responded that she did not agree with the Referrer and she had taken her own advice. She rejected the offer of £1000 which she stated was “derisory.”

 

14. On 3 November 2021 the Referrer offered £5,000 in an attempt to reach a compromise. The Registered Person replied that this was not acceptable and the Referrer should “stop the nonsense” and pay her “small fee” given the profit she was making on the sale because of the Registered Person’s input. The Registered Person offered to “reluctantly accept” £12,000. The Registered Person stated that if this was not accepted lawyers should be instructed which would lead to 6-9 months of delay.

 

15. The Referrer agreed to pay £12,000 and the sale was concluded. On 9 December 2021 the Registered Person’s partner telephoned the Referrer and left a voicemail chasing payment of the £12,000. The Registered Person telephoned the Referrer on 10 December 2021 and stated she was calling as she was aware the property was sold, and the Referrer had not answered her “boyfriend’s calls.” The Referrer requested an invoice.

 

16. On the same day, after the invoice was sent the Referrer sent an email at 16.15 requesting amendments to the invoice and in particular asking for a VAT breakdown of the sum from £12,000 to £10,000 plus £2,000 VAT.

 

17. A further voicemail was left by the Registered Person’s partner at 18.21 stating that VAT was in addition to the £12,000 agreed. The voicemail stated, “…so your invoice will be £12,000 plus VAT which, having checked with my solicitor is correct and applicable, you’ve agreed to pay her £12,000 now you’ve got the VAT. That’s for being smart Brenda.”

 

18. The Referrer sent a letter of complaint dated 12 December 2021 to the Registered Person about the unwanted contact from Mr A and raising a complaint that her data had been improperly shared. The Registered Person responded that the details were not shared by her and so she was unable to assist. The Referrer then complained to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

19. On 22 December 2021 the Registered Person left a voicemail with the Referrer chasing payment of the invoice and stating, “Mr A is very keen to organise solicitors etc…” On 24 December 2021 the Referrer paid £12,000 to the Registered Person.

 

20. On 29 December 2021 the referrer submitted a complaint to ARB.

 

Decision on Facts and UPC

 

21. At the outset of the hearing the Registered Person admitted Particulars 1-3 in their entirety and accepted that they amounted to UPC. In accordance with Rule 25 (d) of the Professional Conduct Committee Rules 2022 the Chair announced the facts at Particulars 1-3 proved. As the hearing progressed it was clear that there were some significant disputes relating to the admitted particulars which the Committee considers it is necessary to determine as they are relevant to the questions of UPC. The Registered Person denied Particular 4.

 

22. In reaching its decisions, the Committee has carefully considered the submissions of the Presenter and Mr Goodwin, together with the documentary evidence presented to it on behalf of ARB and the Registered Person. The Committee heard live evidence from the Referrer and the Registered Person.

 

23. The Committee has accepted the legal advice given by the Legally Qualified Chair. It has had regard to the fact that the burden of proof in this case is on the Board and that the civil standard applies, namely proof on the balance of probabilities. It has applied the relevant case law principles in relation to lack of integrity as outlined in the case of Wingate and Evans v SRA and SRA v Malins [2018] EWC8 Civ 366.

 

Particulars 1 (a) and (b)

 

24. The Committee noted that it was contended by the Registered Person that there had been conversations with the Referrer that her services would be retained beyond the grant of planning permission to eventually build the project. In support of this position the Registered Person gave oral evidence that she only takes on projects where she is going to be retained to build the design. She stated that her emails to the Referrer which set out this understanding were never corrected by the Referrer. The Registered Person accepted that there was nothing in any terms of appointment sent to the Referrer which related to this aspect, but she was proceeding on the basis that there were “implied terms”.

 

25. The Referrer was emphatic in her evidence, that this was never discussed or agreed. In cross-examination she was referred to emails which mentioned ongoing involvement in the project. It was put to her that she did not correct the Registered Person’s misunderstanding and the Referrer stated that she didn’t need to respond as on one occasion the content of the email was “delusional.”

 

26. In the view of the Committee the emails and the evidence of the Referrer are consistent. The Committee considered that the Referrer made it clear from the outset that she wished to sell the site as soon as planning permission was achieved. As a matter of common sense, without any express contractual agreement that the architect’s ongoing appointment was conditional on the sale, it was not within the Referrer’s gift to retain the architect after the land was sold. The Registered Person accepted that this was the case. In the view of the Committee, the emails that suggest there was an agreement, express no more than a desire on the part of the Registered Person to remain involved. A final invoice was sent after the planning application was made which further demonstrated to the Committee that the retainer was at an end. The Committee can see no justification for the belief that there was any agreement that the Registered Person would be retained.

 

27. The Committee had no doubt that the Registered Person was disappointed not to be retained to deliver the project. That was a decision of the ultimate purchaser Mr K which was taken after a meeting with the Registered Person. It appears to have been a decision taken on the basis of fees and the fact that another firm of architects was prepared to undertake the work for less fees. The Registered Person suggested in her evidence that the Referrer had asked Mr K to meet with her to somehow trick her into providing the licence agreement. The Committee could identify no evidence which supported this contention.

 

28. The Committee considered that the Registered Person knew, or ought to have known that there was no guarantee that she would be retained to deliver the project. In those circumstances the Committee considered that it was incumbent on her as a professional to advise her client at the outset that the issue of a licence to build her design by the ultimate purchaser of the land was likely to be required and would attract a fee.

 

Particular 2

 

29. The Registered Person stated in her oral evidence that the Referrer had been rude to her on the telephone, and she had never before been spoken to by a client in this way. She stated that this was, in part, mitigation for the tone of some of her emails but she rightly conceded that they were unacceptable. There is no evidence in the written correspondence that the Referrer ever expressed herself in this way. The emails and texts from the Referrer are measured and polite. The Registered Person stated that the Referrer had been “careful” in her correspondence. However, there is no reference in the subsequent emails to rudeness in earlier calls. Although the Registered Person suggests in her email of 28 October 2021, “I’m not enjoying the conversations or texts…” there is no suggestion that this is because of the Referrer’s rudeness. On 3 November 2021 the Registered person suggests in an email that a phone call would be easier. The Committee therefore did not accept that there had been any rudeness from the Referrer.

 

Particular 3

 

30. It was contended that the detail of the dispute may have been inadvertently disclosed to the Registered Person’s partner in the context of home working and out of hours calls. The Committee did not accept that this was inadvertent. The Committee considered that it was simply not credible that MrA had overheard conversations and taken it upon himself to contact the Referrer. Whilst the exact nature and extent of the contact may not have been known to the Registered Person at the time, it is clear to the Committee that she did subsequently become aware.

 

31. Having found these particulars proved on the basis of the facts as set out above the Committee went on to consider the remaining disputed particular relating to lack of integrity in relation to Particulars 1 (a) and (b). The Committee accepted that the Registered Person genuinely wished to deliver the project and hoped to be involved when the land was sold. That was clear from the evidence and emails. The Committee considered that it was likely that the Registered Person had not really addressed her mind to what would happen if she was not retained. The Committee did not consider that the initial failure to provide the costs information was done with the intent to engineer the situation that later unfolded.

 

32. The Committee also accepted that the Registered Person may have been caught unawares when it became clear that she was not going to be retained. The Registered Person had a very positive meeting with Mr K and discussions were ongoing. In her email of 29 September 2021, the Registered Person states, “I spoke with Mr K earlier about my quote and briefly covered the copyright agreement with him which he has plenty of typical experience of too in the same way we have so all should be agreeable as described.” The Committee considered that in providing the information on 29 September 2021 the Registered Person was working on the assumption, which at that stage was not unreasonable, that she would be retained.

 

33. The Committee considered that whilst it may have been prudent at that stage for the Registered Person to consider the position if she were not retained and provide advice to the Referrer on the likely costs there was no deliberate intention to omit that advice to secure any advantage.

 

34. The position became clear on the 28 October 2021 that the Registered Person was not going to be instructed. On the same day the Registered Person sent an email which stated, “I am certain that there is a fee required for me to release the copyright to another architect.” That email proposed the figure of £22,000 reduced to £20,000 for goodwill. The basis for the figure is described as, “For clarity these sums are not based on ongoing work. Rather, they are the loss of credit to our business…. Please do not begrudge my reasonable fees which will cover my overheads.”

 

35. This was the first time that this issue had been raised with the Referrer. The email clearly states that the Registered Person is “certain” that a fee is required and gives the impression that £20,000 is a properly calculated and appropriate fee. The Registered Person accepted in her evidence that she had taken no legal advice on the issues, despite agreeing that she had never experienced this and stating that it was a “complex” The Registered Person confirmed in her evidence that she had discussed the matter with architect colleagues before arriving at the figure of £20,000. The Committee considered that this approach essentially amounted to the Registered Person placing her own financial interests in securing compensation ahead of her duties to her client to provide adequate advice.

 

36. When the Referrer questioned the Registered Person about the basis of the figure and asked for clarity on the reason for the charges the Registered Person failed to provide any adequate advice. When the issue was put directly by the Referrer in her email of 2 November 2021 which set out her understanding relating to terms and conditions and the right to make such a charge the Registered Person did not engage with the issue nor respond to the points raised and insisted that she would be seeking “substantially more than your derisory figure of £1000.”

 

37. The Referrer again sought to point out that no terms and conditions had been agreed about payment for this matter in her email of 3 November to the Registered Person. In an effort to resolve matters quickly the Referrer offered to pay £5000. The Registered Person responded and stated that the Referrer should, “…stop the nonsense” and pay £12,000. The email concluded, “…this is not negotiable and if you don’t wish to pay this minor amount we should instruct lawyers and no doubt after 6/9 months of delays for you the lawyers will suggest mediation, not emails.”

 

38. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct as set out above lacked integrity. The Committee considered that it was at the forefront of the correspondence that there was an imminent sale that was likely to be prejudiced if this issue could not be resolved quickly to the satisfaction of the buyer. The Registered Person was in a position of advantage in that her consent was required to progress the sale. The Registered Person, in the view of the Committee, exploited this situation to effectively force the Referrer to make a payment to her in circumstances where she had very little alternative. The Committee considered that in failing to address this issue at the outset, the Registered Person was subsequently able to take advantage of the lack of clarity.

 

39. For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee does not consider that there is evidence that suggests a charge was improper or could not be made. Further, it is not making a finding that the Registered Person was aware that she was unable to make a request for fees in these circumstances. However, the Registered Person took no proper advice or steps to find out the correct position before giving advice to her client and proceeded on the assumption that she was entitled to charge. In her email dated 3 November 2021 to the Referrer the Registered Person stated that the Referrer’s lawyers were providing, “…poor one-sided advice.” By this stage the Committee considered that the Registered Person had placed herself in dispute with her client over fees and did not objectively provide the advice incumbent on her as a professional. The Committee considered that the Registered Person’s failure to provide adequate and timely advice about the issue at a critical moment lacked integrity as she had placed her own financial interests above those of her client.

 

Decision on UPC

 

40. Whether the conduct alleged amounts to UPC is a matter for the Committee’s independent judgment to which no burden or standard of proof applies. The Committee noted that the Registered person accepted that her conduct did amount to UPC in relation to Particulars 1-3 and agreed that if Particular 4 was found proved it would also amount to UPC.

 

41. UPC is defined as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered person. In reaching its findings on UPC, the Committee recognises that not every shortcoming on the part of an architect, nor failure to comply with the provisions of the Code, will necessarily give rise to disciplinary proceedings or 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. The architect is expected to be guided by the spirit of the Code as well as its express terms and the fact that a course of conduct is not specifically referred to does not mean that there can be no finding in disciplinary proceedings even if there has been no clear breach of the express terms.

 

42. In deciding whether the facts found proved amount to UPC the Committee had regard to Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). It has borne in mind in reaching its decision that for a finding of unacceptable professional conduct 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” was required. Any failing should be serious.

 

43. The Committee considered that the failure to provide adequate and timely advice in relation to copyright and assignment costs with the knowledge that the site was to be sold was a serious falling short of the standards expected. The effect of this failing was that the Referrer was not aware of a significant cost relating to her project until after the work of the architect had concluded. The Referrer was prevented from making an informed choice at the outset about whether she wished to instruct the architect or proceed with her project.

 

44. The Committee considered that the failure to deal with the dispute adequately or appropriately was a serious falling short of the responsibilities of an architect. A client is entitled to expect that an architect will respond to complaints and concerns professionally and courteously. A client should have confidence that an architect will address issues when they arise. In this case not only did the Registered Person fail to provide her complaints procedure and engage with the Referrer’s complaint, but she also sent emails which, in the view of the Committee were unprofessional and dismissive.

 

45. Further, when the dispute escalated the Registered Person allowed her partner (Mr A) to call the Referrer on more than one occasion. The purpose of those calls was to attempt to place pressure on the Referrer to pay the Registered Person’s invoice. The Registered Person also made reference to her partner wanting to instruct solicitors even after the Referrer had complained about the unwanted contact from Mr A. When the Referrer sent a formal letter of complaint to the Registered Person about the release of her details and information to Mr A, her response was to deny any information had been released. The Registered Person maintained that denial in her response to the complaint made by the Referrer to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and suggested that the complaint had been made to the ICO as the client was disgruntled about paying fees that were properly due. The Registered Person did not adequately or appropriately deal with any of the complaints or the subsequent dispute and in the view of the Committee the Registered Person’s conduct was a very serious departure from the standards required.

 

46. The Committee considered that the Registered Person’s failure to ensure the Referrer’s confidential information was protected and safeguarded was a very serious falling short of the Standards. The Committee was in no doubt that the Registered Person had knowingly and deliberately disclosed the extent of the dispute with the Referrer to her partner Mr A. It was clear to the Committee that this was not an inadvertent slip as Mr A was well aware of the details relating to the request for invoices and the issues raised by the Referrer in her emails and calls. Mr A made reference to the fact that the Referrer’s solicitor was no longer acting for her and indicated that he had discussed the matter with Mr K. In addition, the Registered Person made a further reference to Mr A being keen to instruct solicitors in a telephone call to the Referrer after this issue was raised by the Referrer. This makes it clear that the Registered Person had further discussions with Mr A about the dispute. The Committee considered that this failure enabled Mr A to intimidate the Referrer. In the view of the Committee, it was a striking feature that no apology was given to the Referrer following her complaint, nor any reassurance that the Registered Person would ensure that Mr A did not contact the Referrer again.

 

47. The Committee took into account its findings in relation to honesty and integrity and considered that the Registered Person’s conduct was a very serious falling short of the standards required of an architect. There was a lack of clarity or any agreement about what was to happen to the designs upon the eventual sale of the property. This was created entirely by the Registered Person’s own failure to provide this important advice and information to the client in a timely manner. The effect of this failing was then compounded by the Registered Person who effectively took advantage of the situation to place pressure on the client to pay a significant sum of money or risk losing her sale and the amount paid in fees to obtain planning permission. The Registered Person placed the Referrer in a position where she was faced with significant legal consequences and costs to remedy the situation or pay what the Registered Person demanded without the benefit of adequate advice. The Committee was in no doubt that this would have been very stressful for the Referrer.

 

48. In the Committee’s view, the Registered Person’s conduct constituted a breach of Standards 1.1, 4.3, 6.3, 10.1 and 10.2 of the 2017 Code. The Committee has found that the Registered Person did not act with integrity and placed her own interests before those of her client.

 

49. The Committee considered these failings to be very serious. They have impacted on the reputation of the profession and had a financial and personal effect on the Referrer.

 

50. It is the Committee’s finding that the facts found proved and the corresponding breaches of the Code are serious and adversely impact both on the reputation of an architect and the profession generally. They represent a standard of conduct falling significantly and materially below the standard expected of a registered architect.

 

51. In all the circumstances and for the reasons set out above, the Committee finds that the Registered Person’s conduct does amount to unacceptable professional conduct in respect of all the particulars both individually and cumulatively.

 

Decision on Sanction

 

52. The Presenter set out ARB’s submissions in relation to sanction and drew the Committee’s attention to ARB’s Sanctions Guidance. The Presenter submitted that the Committee should have regard to the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors when assessing the level of sanction. The Presenter confirmed that she was not instructed to “bid” for any sanction, but she submitted that the Committee should take into consideration the aggravating features it had found when determining UPC.

 

53. Mr Goodwin addressed the Committee in mitigation on behalf of the Registered Person and took the Committee in detail through the bundle of references and testimonials that had been submitted. Mr Goodwin submitted that the Registered Person was a well-respected and competent architect who had worked very hard to build her reputation and a successful business.

 

54. Mr Goodwin confirmed that the Registered Person did not seek to go behind the decision of the Committee in relation to facts and UPC. He stated that the Registered Person wished to repeat her apologies to ARB, this Committee, the wider public and also to the Referrer for the failings identified. Mr Goodwin submitted that the Registered Person fully appreciated the seriousness of matters and had taken steps to put matters right in relation to her terms of business such that the conduct will not be repeated.

 

55. Mr Goodwin reminded the Committee that the Registered Person had not set out to create uncertainty and had not deliberately failed to provide information and advice. He submitted that this was an isolated lapse in the context of an exemplary career. He reminded the Committee of the need to act proportionately and to consider the least restrictive sanction.

 

56. Mr Goodwin invited the Committee to impose a reprimand and submitted that this was the appropriate sanction to meet the public interest and would strike a proportionate balance. Mr Goodwin submitted that in the alternative, a penalty order would be proportionate if the Committee was not persuaded a reprimand was sufficient.

 

57. Mr Goodwin submitted that the Registered Person had learned her lesson as a consequence of these lengthy and costly proceedings, and they had been hanging over her for a significant period. He submitted that she was a good architect and there was no risk to the public in the future. Mr Goodwin submitted that any sanction which impacted on the Registered Person’s ability to practise would be unduly punitive.

 

58. The Committee then considered whether to impose a sanction, and if so, which one. The Committee has had regard to the public interest, which includes the need to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the profession and the Board and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, behaviour, and competence. The Committee has carefully considered all the evidence and submissions made during the course of this hearing. It has heard and accepted the advice of the legally qualified chair. It has borne in mind that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. It has taken into account the interests of the Registered Person, the sanctions guidance and the need to act proportionately. It has taken into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. The Committee has exercised its own independent judgement.

 

59. Having taken into account the submissions, the Committee has identified the following aggravating factors:

 

• the Registered Person’s conduct towards the Referrer encompassed a number of failings and persisted over a period of time.
• the Registered Person’s conduct was undertaken for financial gain;
• the Registered Person’s conduct caused significant distress and disadvantaged the Referrer.

 

60. The Committee has identified the following mitigating factors:

 

• the Registered Person has no adverse regulatory history since joining ARB’s register in 2004;
• the Registered Person has apologised and taken corrective steps;
• the Registered Person has constructively engaged with these proceedings and made admissions.

 

61. The Committee had regard to the references provided on behalf of the Registered Person. The Committee noted that these were positive, and it was clear that the Registered Person is well thought of by those who know her well. However, the Committee also bore in mind that there were references from close family and friends. The Committee was also concerned that the comments made by the referees appeared to be based on limited information. It was clear from the tone of some of the references provided that they considered the allegations to be without merit and were not aware of the admissions made.

 

62. The Committee considered that v had shown genuine remorse and over the course of these proceedings has developed her insight. The Committee considered that it was to her credit that the Registered Person made admissions and accepted that her conduct amounted to UPC. The Committee considered that this demonstrated a sincere reflection, and it was in no doubt that these proceedings have had a significant impact upon her.

 

63. The Committee notes that the matters found proved are serious to the extent that the Respondent’s failings diminish both her reputation, and that of the profession generally. The Committee therefore concluded that the respondent’s conduct was sufficiently serious for it to require the imposition of a sanction and has considered them in ascending order of severity.

 

64. The Committee first considered whether to impose a reprimand. The Committee considered that the Registered Person did demonstrate some of the factors that would make this sanction appropriate including insight into failings and corrective steps taken. Although it accepted that the Registered Person considered that the hearing process had been a salutary lesson this was not, in the view of the Committee, sufficient of itself to uphold proper professional standards. The Committee considered the failings too serious for such a sanction to be either appropriate or proportionate.

 

65. The Committee then considered whether to impose a penalty order. For the same reasons as set out above it considered that this was not the appropriate and proportionate sanction to uphold proper professional standards. The Committee considered that the Registered Person’s conduct was not at the lower end of the spectrum and encompassed multiple failures to provide advice and address the Referrer’s complaints adequately over a period of time. The Committee accepted that this was an isolated period relating to one client and one project but nevertheless the Committee considered that a penalty order would not reflect the seriousness of the UPC found proved.

 

66. The Committee next considered whether to impose a suspension order. The Committee considered that this would address the seriousness of the UPC found proved. The Committee considered that the conduct is not incompatible with the Registered Person continuing to be a registered architect, particularly in the light of the steps taken to remedy matters. The Committee considered that the Registered Person was genuine in her intentions to comply in the future with her obligations. The Committee does not consider that the Registered Person should be suspended for a lengthy period, and it considered that a period of suspension should strike a proportionate balance between upholding the reputation of the profession and the Registered Person’s right to practise. The Committee therefore decided that a period of suspension for six months was the appropriate and proportionate order. This period was sufficient to mark that the conduct was very serious.

 

67. The Committee acknowledged that the order was likely to have a significant impact on the Registered Person and her business and took into account the circumstances. However, it considered that it was appropriate to temporarily remove the Registered Person from the register for this period in order to uphold proper professional standards and to protect the reputation of the profession.

 

68. That concludes this determination.