Ms Kimia Benam

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

KIMIA BENAM

(085388G)

Held as a virtual hearing on:

8-12 and 17 June 2026

_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Legally Qualified Chair)
Stuart Carr (PCC Architect Member)
Peter Baker (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

In this case, the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) is represented by Ms Yasmin Omotosho (“the Presenter”) instructed by ­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­Kingsley Napley LLP.

Ms Benam (the “Registered Person”) has attended this hearing and was not legally represented.

 

 

Allegation

The Registered Person faces an allegation of unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”) the particulars of which are as follows;

1) The Registered Person did not provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code;

2) The Registered Person did not manage a conflict of interest appropriately in that:
a) She did not provide sufficiently clear written disclosure to the Referrer that she would be acting as the Contractor’s Architect, Project Manager and Employers Agent;
b) She did not gain written consent to continue to act as the Contractor’s Architect, Project Manager and Employers Agent
3) The Registered Person did not respond to a complaint, contrary to Standard 10.2 of the Architects Code;
4) The Registered Person’s actions at particular 2(a) and/or 2(b) lacked integrity

In doing so, it is alleged that the Registered Person acted in breach of Standards 1.1, 1.3, 4.4, and 10.2 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”).

 

Background

1. The Registered Person is a registered architect and sole director of KB Architects Ltd (“KBA”).

2. The Referrer is a dentist and owner of a dental practice in London (“the Practice”). In 2021, he decided to refurbish the Practice to include two treatment rooms, an x-ray room, a decontamination room, and a reception area.

3. In February 2022, the Referrer engaged the Registered Person. On 2 March 2022, the Registered Person proposed to act as Architect and Project Manager. The Referrer understood that the Registered Person’s role would include completing designs, specifying materials and finishes, and overseeing construction to ensure compliance with those plans.

4. Between April and June 2022, the Registered Person visited the Practice to assist her understanding of the Referrer’s plans and to complete design drawings. The Referrer accepted her proposal and she coordinated the appointment of an MEP (Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing) engineer and a Quantity Surveyor. A design was produced, and by August 2022 the designs were finalised and planning permission obtained. However, the project did not proceed at that stage due to the Referrer’s financial concerns about closing the Practice at a busy time of year.

5. In March 2023, the Referrer re-engaged the Registered Person who issued revised terms, replacing a site visit fee with a monthly fee, which the Referrer accepted. Weekly site visits were agreed. The Referrer again understood that the Registered Person would act as his Architect and Project Manager, responsible for design, oversight of contractors, and ensuring compliance with her plans. No formal engagement document was issued beyond email correspondence.

6. Between April and June 2023, the project was put out to tender. Several contractors were invited to tender including the Referrer’s preferred contractor, Aspects. The Registered Person and the Quantity Surveyor recommended the contractor DCS. The Registered Person indicated to the Referrer that she would not act as Project Manager if Aspects were appointed. Aspects had been a contractor that had completed renovations at the Referrer’s sister’s dental practice around 2007 and was favoured by the Referrer for that reason. The Registered Person explained to the Referrer, and in her oral evidence during the hearing, that she had no prior experience of Aspects and they were unable to confirm that they held an appropriate level of insurance and that they did not appear to have experience of a similar project. The prior contract with the Referrer’s sister involved a limited amount of joinery and was more than 15 years earlier. The Registered Person asserted to the Referrer that DCS provided the best and cheapest tender option.

7. DCS was appointed as the building contractor in June 2023.

8. On 25 July 2023, the Referrer entered into a Design and Build contract with DCS, and the Registered Person acted as the Referrer’s Architect, Project Manager, and Employer’s Agent. Following commencement of works, the Referrer states that he first became aware that KBA was also acting as architect for DCS and that KBA’s fees were included within the contractor’s invoices.

9. The Referrer states that this dual role and payment arrangement had not been disclosed or explained, no consent was sought, and no formal agreement addressed the issues that could arise as a consequence of this conflict of interest. The Registered Person disagreed with this assertion and contended that all relevant matters were set out in writing and subsequently explained in verbal communications when requested.

10. Construction work commenced on 31 July 2023 with a planned duration of six weeks at a cost of £286,000 + VAT. Payments were made through a valuation process involving the contractor, Quantity Surveyor, and Registered Person. However, the Referrer alleges that the project experienced delays from August 2023 onwards. Relations between the parties deteriorated, leading to payment disputes and threats to suspend works.

11. Despite these ongoing issues, the Referrer made further payments, issued notices regarding defects, and engaged a new Quantity Surveyor. The works remained incomplete by the Spring of 2024.

12. In late 2023 and early 2024, the Referrer states that he sought to resolve matters with the Registered Person. He states that she failed to respond to his correspondence, which he regarded as a termination of their relationship.

13. The Referrer, in January 2024, requested the Registered Person’s complaints procedure and made a “formal complaint” to her in February 2024, to which he states no response was received.

14. In March 2024, the Referrer escalated the matter and sent a Data Subject Access Request to the Registered Person, and on 6 April 2024 he submitted a formal complaint to ARB.

15. In her response to the ARB investigative enquiries the Registered Person commented on the allegations as follows:

16. Allegation 1: The Registered Person said that after her first meeting with the Referrer, she sent a proposal setting out her scope of work and fees by using a RIBA “Stage of Works” format. She says she also explained this in meetings and calls before receiving email instructions. She said that this was a modest project and, although she would usually use formal RIBA appointment documentation for larger projects, she did not do so in this contact, which she now regrets.

17. Allegation 2: The Registered Person says she usually remains on the client side as technical adviser or project manager, while a colleague takes on the contractor side, so she can help preserve quality and design intent during construction. She said that on other projects contractors had sometimes excluded her from client engagement and pursued changes that were not in the project’s interests.

18. She said this was the first project on which she also acted as Employer’s Agent in order to reduce costs for the Referrer. She says the Referrer was often anxious about costs and upset when she recommended using consultants. She expressed regret, with the benefit of hindsight, in taking on that role but said that she sought to act properly and wanted the project resolved successfully. She also said that the contractor withheld half of KBA’s construction-phase fee (£5,900) because the Referrer had not paid the final valuations.

19. In further representations, the Registered Person said that contract novation (KBA being novated to act for the contractor during the construction phase) was discussed with the Referrer from the outset and she believed that this was fully understood by the Referrer. She said this novation of KBA to the contractor side of the project was intended to preserve design leadership and project knowledge during construction. She added that she used an “ethical wall” (or “Chinese wall”) to manage any conflict and that the contractor team’s architectural assistant (her colleague, L) was line-managed by another colleague while she remained on the client side.

20. Allegation 3: The Registered Person asserted that she did respond to the complaints raised by the Referrer. In further representations, the Registered Person said she made several unsuccessful attempts to engage with the Referrer. She says he first complained to her in writing on 21 January 2024, to which she responded on 25 January 2024. He complained again by email on 19 February 2024, which was responded to by a colleague on 21 February 2024. She adds that she was also dealing with a highly stressful personal situation at the time.

 

Findings of Fact

21. 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.

22. 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?

23. 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, the Expert (Philip Morris), and the Registered Person. The Committee also took into account the submissions made by the Presenter (on behalf of the ARB) and the Registered Person.

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

25. On having the particulars read, the Registered Person denied all allegations. The Case Presenter opened the case and called the Referrer (Dr F. Zhand) to give evidence.

26. At the beginning of the oral evidence of the Referrer the Committee was told that the Referrer had indicated to the Case Presenter that he had further evidence that he wished to give that related to more recent communications between himself and the Registered Person. This included WhatsApp messages and a telephone conversation on 4 December 2025. The Case Presenter confirmed that the new evidence had not been disclosed to the Registered Person or the Committee as it only came to her attention shortly before the Referrer started to give evidence. However, she asserted that the new material was relevant.

27. The Chair advised the parties of the terms of PCC Rules 19 and 20 in that permission of the Committee was required before new evidence could be admitted that was not part of the evidence disclosed with the Notice of Hearing. The Registered Person indicated that she also had some correspondence that she would wish to rely upon that was connected to the issues in the case.

28. The Committee directed that both parties formally serve the new evidence on the other before making a formal application to admit the evidence. The ARB was asked to provide a supplementary statement from the Referrer that included all relevant new matters and exhibited any relevant text messages. The Registered Person was invited to send her correspondence to the Hearings Officer at ARB.

29. A supplementary statement from the Referrer was provided to the Committee and the Case Presenter applied for it to be admitted under the provisions of PCC Rules 19 and 20. The Registered Person raised four grounds opposing the admission of the new evidence, as follows;

• Personal matters were included that ought to be heard in private.
• The statement contained matters that were inaccurate.
• The statement repeats some of the Referrer’s original evidence.
• Some matters contained in the statement were not relevant.

30. The Committee was satisfied that the concerns raised could be satisfactorily addressed in the hearing. Personal matters can be heard in private session, inaccuracies can be dealt with through cross examination, repetition of evidence does not improve the quality of that evidence, and any irrelevant material can be given appropriate weight.

31. The Committee granted permission for the admission of the new evidence as it was satisfied that the evidence was relevant to issues in the case. The purported content of the conversation addressed issues that were relevant to the dispute between the Referrer and the Registered Person. The Committee also concluded that it was fair to allow its admission as the Registered Person was a party to the communications contained in the evidence and would be aware of the content and could challenge it in cross-examination. The Committee made clear that to ensure fairness the Registered Person could have additional time to prepare her cross-examination should she require it. The further evidence is as follows;

• Five page supplemental witness statement of the Referrer dated 8.6.26
• Exhibit 69 – WhatsApp communications between the Registered Person and Referrer dated 4.12.25.

32. The Registered Person also sought the admission of a letter that had been sent to her some six months after the conversation of 4 December 2026. The Committee requested access to the material in order to make an assessment of its relevance.

33. Having been provided with a copy of the letter the Committee was satisfied that this letter did not have any material relevance beyond being a further milestone in the dispute between the Referrer and the Registered Person. The Registered Person conceded in oral submissions that she did not wish to pursue the admission of the letter. The application to admit this evidence was declined.

Particular 1: The Registered Person did not provide adequate terms of engagement, contrary to Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code;

34. Standard 4.4 of the Architects Code sets out the required standard of information to be provided by a registered person to a client prior to undertaking any professional work. It states that there must be a “written agreement” which “adequately covers” the following matters:

• 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 complaint- handling procedure available on request;
• that you are registered with the Architects Registration Board and that you are subject to this Code.

35. It was common ground between the parties that such a written agreement does not need to be contained within a single document and the information could be provided within a number of separate written documents. It was conceded by the Registered Person that it would have been preferable if she had a standard template document that included all of this information at the outset, but she asserted that much of the information could be ascertained from the written correspondence that passed between her and the Referrer.

36. The Committee carefully considered the available documentary evidence. The early correspondence in March of 2022 included a written design proposal and prospective terms of engagement via email. However, the email was not fully compliant with all of the expectations of Standard 4.4 of the Code. Further correspondence that took place in March of 2023 expanded upon the earlier information but was also not fully compliant with the Code. A later email in June of 2023 included yet further information and, although compliant in the sense that it provided updated information to the Referrer, it was also lacking certain important information required by Standard 4.4.

37. In oral evidence the Registered Person confirmed that it was usually her practice to provide clients with the RIBA Standard terms and conditions but, on this occasion, she did not do so because she did not wish to overwhelm the Referrer with too much information. The Committee concluded that this was a mistake and prevented the Referrer from having all of the relevant information set out within the terms of Standard 4.4.

38. Having concluded the examination of the written evidence the Committee is satisfied that the Registered Person failed to provide adequate written terms of agreement in relation to the following clauses of Standard 4.4;

• 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 complaint-handling procedure available on request
• that you are registered with the ARB and that you are subject to this Code

39. In her oral evidence the Registered Person conceded that she had not provided any information regarding the provision for suspension of the contract or that she had adequate insurance cover. However, she assured the Committee that she had £2,000,000 of cover at the relevant time. She also confirmed that her practice would engage external alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes should client disputes not be capable of internal resolution, but she accepted that her written terms of engagement did not include any reference to this. She also accepted that she had not provided information confirming that a complaints-handling procedure was available upon request but pointed out to the Committee that not only did such a procedure exist but she provided a copy, upon his request, to the Referrer in January 2024. The Registered Person also conceded that she did not include reference to her registration with ARB or that she was subject to the Architects Code. She did point out that her email signature contained a reference to her registration with ARB.

40. The Committee is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this particular is proved on the basis set out above. This was not a wholesale failure to observe the terms of Standard 4.4 but it was a significant falling short of that Standard.

Particular 2: The Registered Person did not manage a conflict of interest appropriately in that:

a) She did not provide sufficiently clear written disclosure to the Referrer that she would be acting as the Contractor’s Architect, Project Manager and Employers Agent;
b) She did not gain written consent to continue to act as the Contractor’s Architect, Project Manager and Employers Agent

41. The Committee noted that this particular centered on the concepts of “clear written disclosure” and “written consent” in relation to the multiple roles proposed and undertaken by the Registered Person and the Registered Person’s firm in the project. The Referrer, in both his written and oral evidence, maintained that throughout the project he was unaware of, or confused about, these roles and was constantly asking the Registered Person “who are you working for?”

42. A key document in resolving Particular 2 was an email from the Registered Person to the Referrer dated 15 June 2023. Within the chronology of the project this email was sent after the design phase had been completed and before the contractor had been selected via the tendering process. The relevant paragraphs are copied below;

“Regarding project responsibilities:

– Client side team – Project Manager / Architect Myself will remain on client side to oversee contractor to ensure that the design intent is met – also to review contractor programme progress and quality of works on site

– Contractor side team – Architectural Support

My colleague (L) will be working for the preferred contractor to support their architectural needs and provide the required stage 5 construction drawings. These are working detailed drawings to assist the contractors in providing information to construct the project on site.

The primary responsibility lies with the contractor with a Design & Build Contract – which means you have single point of contact for any potential future issues or defects why may arise. They will then engage with their subcontractors and consultants to investigate further any issues (should they come light) however our role is to seek to identify issues and resolve them.”

43. The email was prompted by the Referrer’s email request on 13 June 2023 for further information as to what the next steps would be. An extract is copied below;

“For my understanding, I wanted to clarify where responsibility and accountability lay for the work. My assumption from your quote is to provide a managed service is that the builders are responsible for the work but, given your oversight role, you are responsible for the quality of the work?
Just want to be clear in case anything becomes complicated in future.”

44. The ARB criticised the Registered Person’s 15 June email on the basis that, although it gave the impression of separate teams within KBA, in reality there was no such separation. They asserted that the Registered Person, as sole director of KBA, occupied all roles and even though the Registered Person’s colleague, L, functioned as the contractor’s architect liaison at KBA she did so under the supervision of the Registered Person. As such, the Registered Person was representing both the client and contractor, and this was an obvious conflict of interest. The case presenter reminded the Committee of the evidence of the Expert Witness who expressed his view that it was not possible for the Registered Person to “wear different hats” in such a situation and, for example, be able to robustly challenge a contractor in order to advance the client’s best interests.

45. The Registered Person’s email of 15 June was exhibited within the evidence bundle from the ARB but did not appear to have received any response. Particular 2(b) alleged that the Registered Person had not received written consent from the Referrer to continue to function as the contractor’s architect, project manager, and employer’s agent. In oral evidence the Registered Person asserted that her email on 15 June was responded to the same day and that she had taken the positive response as consent for her to continue, and for her colleague to continue, within the roles set out in her 15 June email. At the request of the Committee, the Registered Person provided the Referrer’s reply to her email of 15th June within which he replies, “Many thanks”. There is no request for further information or any expression that he had not understood the content of the Registered Person’s email.

46. The Committee also noted the Referrer’s oral evidence within which he confirmed that he was aware at the relevant time that L would deal with the contractors and assist them with plans and any clarification they required. He also understood that the Registered Person was on his side of the project. He stated that if he had known the Registered Person was the contractor’s architect this would have changed his decision to go ahead with the project.

47. The Committee was assisted in its deliberations by the published ARB guidance document “Managing Conflicts of Interest” published 3 November 2025. Although this document was not available to the Registered Person at the relevant time it provided the Committee with useful information as to ARB’s current approach towards conflicts of interest and how they should be managed.

48. The guidance provided a more nuanced approach to the issue of managing conflicts of interest than that set out in Standard 1.3 of the Code. The ARB case presenter accepted that the wording of Standard 1.3 suggests that the Standard is only triggered once a “conflict of interest arises.” Standard 1.3 also sets out the requirement for “informed consent before continuing to act” and that where such consent is not received a Registered Person should “cease acting for one or more of the parties.” Using the terminology contained within the 2025 guidance document, Standard 1.3 is triggered not at the point where there is a potential or perceived conflict of interest but where it has crystallised into an actual conflict of interest.

49. The Referrer’s project involved a design and build form of contract. The 2025 Guidance makes specific reference to design and build contracts and that they;

“…can create inherent tensions between the different roles an architect may be asked to perform. Where an architect provides services to both client and contractor, there is a risk that their ability to give independent advice may be compromised. These situations are not automatically unacceptable, but any potential conflicts must be declared to all parties and carefully managed.”

50. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s email on 15 June 2023 was adequate written disclosure that accurately set out the various roles that the Registered Person and her KBA colleagues would undertake within the design and build project. It sought to manage what was at that point a potential conflict of interest by establishing what the Registered Person referred to as “ethical walls” (also known as “Chinese Walls”) between different teams within KBA. The email clearly set out that the Registered Person would be taking on the role of project manager and employer’s agent and explained that her colleague, L, would be the contractor’s architect liaison at KBA. The Committee did not accept the suggestion from ARB that the Registered Person, because she was the sole director of KBA, was, in effect, the contractor’s architect. Not only does the email of 15 June 2023 clarify the separation of the Registered Person’s role but it also explains that her colleague would be undertaking the “contractor’s architect” role. In her oral evidence, the Registered Person explained that she was not the line manager for L and that L was supervised by another member of staff at KBA, thus providing a further layer of separation within KBA.

51. There was no evidence presented during the hearing suggesting that any potential conflict of interest developed into an actual conflict of interest and the oral evidence given by the Registered Person confirmed that there were no issues raised by the contractor to L that required the Registered Person to review the effectiveness of the “ethical walls” that had been put in place within KBA.

52. The Committee was also satisfied that the Referrer’s reply to the Registered Person’s email on 15 June 2023 was a sufficient written confirmation that the Referrer had given his informed consent to the Registered Person continuing to act for him in the way set out.

53. The Referrer had consistently asserted that he had not been provided with the requisite information relating to the potential conflict of interest that would be foreseeable within this project. However, the Committee noted that the Referrer’s recollection was flawed and was not consistent with the written evidence. A stark example of this was a letter of intent that was drafted by the Registered Person on the Referrer’s behalf and formed an agreement between the Referrer and the contractor. The Referrer was adamant that he had never seen this document. However, during questions posed by the Committee, he not only accepted that he had seen the document but that he had signed it. In response to questions put to him in cross-examination by the Registered Person, he agreed that the letter of intent gave further clarification of the roles KBA and the Registered Person would be undertaking during the construction phase of the project.

54. The Referrer appeared to have forgotten, or overlooked, the information that had been provided to him in the email of 15 June 2023 and the letter of intent, both of which he accepted that he had received and read.

55. The Committee formed the view that the Referrer’s recollection was likely to have been tainted by his concerns that all of the project consultants and the contractor may have been colluding together and plotting against him. The Committee noted that he also complained directly to the quantity surveyor and the MEP engineer around the same time as he made a complaint against the Registered Person.

56. The Registered Person’s evidence was credible and consistent with the other written evidence that was available to the Committee. The passage of time since the relevant events was one factor that may have contributed to the Referrer’s evidence being inconsistent with the documentary evidence, but it is also likely that his suspicion of the various consultants in the project had an adverse effect upon the accuracy of his memory.

57. As the Expert Witness, Mr Morris, explained in his evidence, “clarity is key” and matters need to be put in writing so that this can be evidenced. The Committee was greatly assisted by the Report of the Expert Witness, but it did not agree with certain assertions that he made. For example, his evidence was that an architect should not be on both sides of a design and build contract because of the high probability of unforeseen circumstances adding sums to the contract cost. In such circumstances, he asserted, it would be difficult for an architect to act fairly on both sides. The Committee noted that this evidence was inconsistent with the current published guidance of ARB which acknowledges that a design and build contract can accommodate an architect acting for both sides of the contract as long as safeguards are observed. The Expert Witness conceded that his personal experience was limited as he had never worked as an architect on both sides of a design and build contact.

58. In any event, the Committee was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registered Person had disclosed and explained the circumstances that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest within her email of 15 June 2023 and she obtained a response to that email from the Referrer that suggested informed consent had been given.

59. In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that ARB has NOT PROVED either Particular 2(a) or 2(b) to the requisite Standard.

Particular 3: The Registered Person did not respond to a complaint, contrary to Standard 10.2 of the Architects Code;

60. The ARB case in relation to Particular 3 was that there was one formal complaint and this was sent by email by the Referrer to the Registered Person on 19 February 2024. The ARB case is that this complaint received no response.

61. Standard 10.2 of the Code states that, aside from handling complaints courteously and promptly, complaints should be dealt with within certain time scales. Firstly, an acknowledgement must be sent within 10 working days from receipt of a complaint and, secondly, a response addressing the issues raised in the initial letter of complaint must, as far as practicable, be provided within 30 working days from its receipt.

62. The Committee noted that the email sent by the Referrer on 19 February 2024 was described within its content as a “formal complaint”. However, the Registered Person asserted in her evidence that this email was preceded by an earlier email on 21 January 2024 which she took to be the initial complaint. She went on to assert that she responded in detail to this earlier email on 25 January 2024. The Committee carefully scrutinised the 21 January email from the Referrer. It set out a number of grievances that the Referrer had with the Registered Person and the lack of progress of the project. Towards the end of the email reference is made to the potential for a “formal complaint” if the grievances were not resolved promptly. The ARB case was that only the 19 February 2024 email should be considered as a formal complaint to which a response and acknowledgment was required.

63. The Committee noted two published ARB guidance documents existed in relation to how an architect should deal with a complaint. Guidance published in 2022 gave the following advice;

“When you are dealing with a complaint, you might find the following guidelines helpful:

• If the complaint is in writing, you should try to acknowledge it immediately.
• Tell the complainant who will be dealing with the complaint, and let them know how long it is likely to take.
• Provide the complainant with a copy of your written complaints procedure.
• Find out what they expect from the complaints process, and whether their expectations are reasonable.
• If the complainant asks for a meeting, try to arrange one as quickly as possible.
• Open a complaint file, and keep a record of the steps you take to settle the matter.
• Make sure you keep them informed of the progress of their complaint.
• Finally, remember that dealing with complaints quickly helps to maintain good will and is often the most cost-effective solution for you.”

64. The guidance published in 2025, although not in existence at the relevant time, provided useful context especially in relation to how an architect should recognise a complaint. In the 2025 guidance a complaint is described as “… any expression of dissatisfaction about the work or conduct of an architect, whether made orally or in writing.” The Committee agrees with the Registered Person that she was correct in recognising the email of 21 January as being a complaint. Further, the Committee is satisfied that the Registered Person both acknowledged and responded to that complaint entirely in accordance with Standard 10.2. The response and acknowledgement were within the stipulated time scale. Also, the Referrer was provided with the complaints-handling policy.

65. However, the subsequent email from the Referrer on 19 February 2024 was not simply a repetition of the initial complaint. It was a different and separate complaint raising issues that had not been included in the complaint from 21 January 2024. As such, the February complaint required both an acknowledgement and response in accordance with Standard 10.2 of the Code. The Committee noted the evidence of the Registered Person that she had delegated the task of responding to the February complaint to a colleague, Mr T. An acknowledgement of the complaint was provided but there was no response that addressed the issues that were raised in the February complaint.

66. The Committee noted that there were further communications passing between the Registered Person and the Referrer including a Data Subject Access Request submitted by the Referrer to which the Registered Person responded in March 2023. However, the matters raised in the February complaint were never addressed by the Registered Person or any colleague delegated by her. The Registered Person explained in her oral evidence that she had become disheartened at this stage and did not believe that she could resolve any of the outstanding grievances. She also referred to personal issues that were a significant distraction to her. The Registered Person acknowledged that she should have ensured that she or a colleague continued to respond even if the prospects of resolution were diminishing. In her oral evidence during cross-examination, she conceded that she and KBA had “skipped some steps in the complaints policy” and that at the time she did not believe that the Referrer would listen and let her support him and that they would be “going around in circles.”

67. The Committee is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Particular 3 is PROVED to the requisite Standard on the basis that there was no effective response addressing the issues raised in the February complaint.

Particular 4: The Registered Person’s actions at particular 2(a) and/or 2(b) lacked integrity

68. The Committee, having found Particular 2 not proved, was not required to consider Particular 4.

69. In conclusion the Committee finds the facts proved in relation to Particulars 1 and 3. It does not find the facts proved in relation to Particulars 2 and 4.

Determination at Stage 2 – Unacceptable Professional Conduct

70. The Committee went on from the fact-finding stage to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct in relation to the Stage 1 findings of Particulars 1 and 3 amounted to UPC.

71. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter on behalf of the ARB and from the Registered Person and accepted the advice of the 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.

72. 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.”

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

74. The Committee 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 its proper weight.

75. In respect of Particular 1, the Committee noted the submission of the ARB that Standard 4.4 is important as it ensures that a client is aware of their full rights when engaging the services of an architect. The Committee agrees that an absence of clear written terms of engagement is often a factor that contributes to a breakdown in the relationship between a client and an architect. In this case the Registered Person had partially provided the requisite terms of engagement within a number of emails to the Referrer. However, the information was incomplete to a significant extent. The Committee was not able to identify whether any of the subsequent grievances arose directly from this shortcoming, but the absence of a clear mechanism by which to resolve disputes would have had some effect upon the Referrer especially where his trust and confidence in the Registered Person had eroded.

76. Although the Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person had partially complied with Standard 4.4, The shortcomings in the terms of engagement were serious enough to amount to unacceptable professional conduct. Therefore, the Committee finds UPC PROVED in respect of Particular 1.

77. The Committee next considered whether the finding of fact in relation to Particular 3 was sufficiently serious a falling short of the Standards to amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The ARB report incorrectly set out that the Registered Person had failed to respond at all to complaints raised by the Referrer. The ARB had framed this particular based upon the confident assertions made by the Referrer that his complaint had not received the proper response. As set out above at stage 1, the Committee was satisfied that this allegation was flawed. It is clear that the Registered Person had reacted to the initial email from the Referrer in January 2024 and treated it as if it were a complaint. The Committee concludes that this is the correct approach and although the later email was described as a “formal complaint” the Registered Person was correct in identifying the January email as a complaint and she responded to it in full compliance with Standard 10.2.

78. However, the February complaint did not receive a satisfactory response. It received an acknowledgement in accordance with Standard 10.2(a) but the issues raised in the complaint were never addressed. The Referrer was entitled to receive a proper response. The Committee acknowledges that the Registered Person had delegated the management of the complaint to a colleague, but she retained overall responsibility for ensuring the complaint received a full response. A Data Subject Access Request made by the Referrer a few weeks later received a response from the Registered Person and the Committee concluded that the absence of a response to the complaint is more likely to have been an oversight than a deliberate refusal to engage. Nevertheless, the Committee concludes that the falling short of this Standard was serious enough to amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

79. The Committee finds unacceptable professional conduct PROVED in respect of Particular 3.

80. In conclusion, the Committee finds the facts proved in relation to Particulars 1 and 3 amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

Determination at Stage 3 – Sanction

81. 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.

82. 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.

83. 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.

84. 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.

85. The Committee was satisfied that the conduct found proved was isolated in the sense that it was limited to one project, but the conduct also demonstrated some underlying weaknesses in the procedures employed by the Registered Person suggesting a pattern of failures to ensure strict compliance with client-care aspects of the Code in both Particulars 1 and 3. These weaknesses did not result in a complete failure of compliance with the Standards in respect of Particulars 1 and 3 where the Committee found that there was partial adherence. Therefore, this factor was considered to have some, albeit limited, aggravating impact.

86. The Committee also noted mitigating factors including the significant insight demonstrated by the Registered Person in her evidence and submissions during the hearing. She acknowledged the errors that she had made but placed these within the context of an unblemished career of 11 years. The Committee noted that the Registered Person had acknowledged that she had possibly overreached her skills and experience due to her accelerated career progression that led to her running her own practice at a relatively early stage in her career.

87. The Committee also noted the evidence of personal issues experienced by the Registered Person at the relevant time. The Committee accepted that this factor would have been a significant distraction that partially explained the failure to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Code in relation to the response to the Referrer’s complaints.

88. The Registered Person had the benefit of testimonials from Ms W and Mr B that demonstrate their positive experience of collaborating with the Registered Person in past projects. They spoke highly of her skill and professionalism together with the highest level of client care and engagement. Both attest to the previous success of the Registered Person working in similar projects.

89. The Committee also noted the significant steps towards remediation that the Registered Person had taken prior to the hearing. It was evident to the Committee that the Registered Person had reflected upon her conduct with a self-critical eye and demonstrated that she had learned from the process. She had improved and developed standard terms of engagement and other documentation that had been implemented in her practise. These documents have been provided to the Committee and were considered to be of high quality. The Registered Person had also demonstrated through her positive engagement that she recognises the importance of the ARB regulatory process.

90. The Registered Person had made appropriate concessions in her evidence as to shortcomings in both Particular 1 and 3 and had contested those matters only as a qualitative assessment as to whether the falling short of the Standards was so serious as to amount to unacceptable professional conduct. She had expressed regret and apologised during her evidence and submissions and the Committee noted that she expressed sympathy for the Referrer during the communications between them that took place in December 2025. The Committee noted that the Referrer confirmed in his evidence that he would have considered reengaging with the Registered Person if the project could have been salvaged and completed to his satisfaction. This reflected a more temperate view of the Registered Person than that expressed by the Referrer in 2023 and 2024.

91. Having considered the aggravating and mitigating features in this case and reflecting on the findings at Stages 1 and 2, the Committee was satisfied that the UPC in this matter fell towards the lower end of seriousness.

92. 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, proper standards of conduct and competence, and the reputation of the profession, this was not considered appropriate. The public needs to be assured that architects will adhere to the Code in setting out clear and proper terms of engagement and that any complaints that occur are managed appropriately. The Sanctions Guidance suggests that this course of action would be appropriate only in “exceptional circumstances” which the Committee considers do not apply to the facts of this case.

93. 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.

94. The Committee finds that there is no evidence that the Registered Person poses an ongoing risk to the public and there is no evidence that her conduct has seriously affected her client or the wider public. The Committee acknowledges that her conduct had some impact on the Referrer by contributing to his anxiety, confusion and uncertainty, but this cannot be considered serious in the context of the overall evidence. There is good evidence of insight and corrective steps as set out above, and the Registered Person has a good previous disciplinary history. The conduct was isolated to the Referrer’s project and was not intentional. The Committee notes the findings at Stages 1 and 2 that there was partial compliance with the appropriate Standards in respect of both Particulars 1 and 3.

95. 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.

96. The Committee therefore imposes a Reprimand.

97. This concludes this determination.