Ms Melanie Schubert

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of:
MELANIE SCHUBERT (068912B)
_______________
Held in person on the 19-23 October 2026 at the
National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO)
Regents Wharf
8 All Saints Street
London
N1 9RL
______________
Present:
Andrew Lewis (Legally Qualified Chair)
David Mulligan (PCC Architect Member)
Alastair Cannon (PCC Lay Member)

The ARB was represented by Mr Felix Keating (the “Case Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.
Ms Melanie Schubert (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was represented by Mr Jonathan Goodwin, Solicitor Advocate.

 

Allegation
The allegation against the Registered Person is that she is guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct (“UPC”).

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) relies upon the following particulars in support of the allegation:
1. The Registered Person did not provide adequate design information and/or drawings in line with relevant professional and/or technical standards.
2. The Registered Person did not adequately and/or appropriately carry out her duties as contract administrator in that she:
i) Did not issue adequate Architects Instructions outlining variations to the design;
ii) Did not adequately inspect the works before issuing the Practical Completion Certificate;
iii) Did not issue any Interim Certificates and/or the process established for assessing the valuations was inadequate;
iv) Certified that Practical Completion had occurred when she knew it had not.
3. The Registered Person’s actions at particular 2d lacked integrity and/or were dishonest.

Background
1. The Registered Person has been a registered architect for approximately 25 years and is a partner of SAM Architects LLP.
2. In January 2020, Mr Anthony Nash (“the Referrer”), and his partner exchanged contracts for the purchase of [Address Redacted from Public Decision] (“the Property”), a two-storey, semi-detached single-family dwelling originally dating from the Victorian period. The Referrer and his partner wanted to extend the rear ground floor and part of the first floor, and to carry out various alterations and refurbishment works.
3. The Referrer first contacted the Registered Person in late 2019, and on 7 November 2019, the Registered Person sent him a fee proposal offering a full architect service, including contract administration and post-contract administration. The Referrer accepted the fee proposal and on 17 July 2020 the Registered Person issued the tender set of drawings. It is accepted that the Registered Person did not prepare a separate written specification or schedule of works.
4. On 28 August 2020, a contractor named DoBuild Limited (“DoBuild”) signed a JCT Minor Works building contract in which SAM is named as the architect/ contract administrator and the CDM principal designer. The date of commencement of works was fixed at 7 September 2020, and completion was 25 January 2021.
5. There were significant delays and the Referrer and his partner moved into the property on 16 January 2021.
6. Almost immediately, serious faults in the building became apparent. For the purposes of these proceedings, they can be properly summarised as follows. There were significant defects to the roof, drainage, and windows, which resulted in significant flooding, and the building becoming uninhabitable.
7. Between June and November 2021, DoBuild made numerous attempts to repair the property, and their attempts failed. A significant dispute arose between the Referrer and DoBuild and subsequently the Registered Person. In so far as those disputes touch upon these proceedings, they are summarised below.
8. In November 2021, DoBuild instructed solicitors known as DWF Law LLP (“DWF”) and the Referrer instructed construction consultants known as Edge Consult UK LLP (“Edge”) where he dealt primarily with Mr PG, a dispute resolution advisor. Mr PG was not a solicitor, but there is no dispute that he was referred to the Referrer’s solicitor in correspondence sent or copied to the Registered Person.
9. Throughout November and December, both DWF and Edge wrote to the Registered Person, urging her, among other things, to issue a Certificate of Practical Completion, certifying that the building had been complete on 6 or 9 June 2021, despite the significant defects that had become apparent since then.
10. On 20 December 2021, the Registered Person certified that Practical Completion had occurred on 6 June 2021. In February 2022, the dispute between the Referrer and DoBuild was referred to adjudication. The Registered Person was not involved in that adjudication, and the Committee is not concerned with the reasons for the decision made. Nevertheless, it is necessary to record that the Referrer was largely unsuccessful in his claim for damages under the building contract.
11. On 22 February 2024, the Referrer submitted a complaint against the Registered Person to the ARB.
12. In July 2025, the ARB instructed an expert to examine the work of the Registered Person. He made a number of criticisms of the Registered Person’s drawings and her work as contract administrator. Those criticisms are reflected in the particulars of the Allegation and his evidence is dealt with where relevant below.
13. His concerns with regard to the Registered Person’s drawings are the subject of Particular 1 of the Allegation. His concerns regarding the Registered Person’s work as contract administrator are reflected in Particulars 2a, 2b and 2c.

Admissions
14. The Particulars of Allegation were read to the Registered Person at the start of the hearing in accordance with rule 25 (c) of the Investigations and Professional Conduct Committee Rules (“the Rules”).
15. The Registered Person admitted Particular 1, Particular 2(a), 2(b) (in part) and 2 (c).
16. Those particulars were recorded as admitted and found proved in accordance with Rule 25(d), subject to the proviso that both parties recognised that the Registered Person maintained that her failure to inspect the works was limited to a failure to inspect the roof before it was covered up, while the ARB did not accept that it was limited in that way.
17. It was agreed that the Committee would resolve at stage 1, the extent to which the Registered Person’s failure to inspect had gone beyond the failure she admitted.

Evidence
18. The Committee had before it:
i. A “Final Hearing Bundle” of 609 pages from the ARB which included the following:
a) The “Report to the PCC”, which contained a written statement of the ARB’s case;
b) A witness statement of the Referrer dated 16 May 2026;
c) Expert report of William Bates;
d) The correspondence between the Registered Person and the various representatives throughout 2021;
ii. Registered Person’s defence and written submissions dated 28 September 2026 – 26 pages;
iii. Witness statement of SJ dated 3 October 2026;
iv. Defence bundle – 46 pages.;
v. Defence exhibits bundle- 69 pages.
19. The Committee also heard evidence from the following witnesses.
i. The Referrer
ii. Mr William Bates (ARB expert witness)
iii. The Registered Person
iv. Ms SJ (the Registered Person’s business partner.)

SUBMISSIONS AND ADVICE
Submissions
20. The Committee heard submissions from the Case Presenter and Mr Goodwin. Both advocates assisted the Committee with an account of the relevant law, which the Committee has followed in its decisions set out below. In so far as the submissions deal specifically with matters relating to either particular 2 (c) or 2 (d), the Committee has set those submissions out under the relevant particular.

Advice
21. The Committee also received legal advice from the Chair, which it followed in its approach to the allegation. The Committee summarises that advice as follows.
22. The Chair advised the Committee that the burden of proof lies on the ARB and the Registered Person does not have to prove or disprove anything.
23. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. There is no enhanced standard of proof because an allegation is serious. The inherent probability or improbability of an event is a matter which can be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and in deciding whether the event occurred. Where an event is inherently improbable, it may take better evidence to persuade the judge that it has happened. This goes to the quality of evidence.
24. The Committee must not speculate but can draw inferences from facts it has found proved. When drawing an inference, it should set out the facts it has found proved, the inferences it has drawn and explain why it has drawn them.
25. The Committee does not have to resolve every disputed fact in this case only those that are necessary to enable it to reach a decision on the particulars of the allegation.
26. When assessing the evidence of witnesses, the Committee should remember both that memory is fallible and it should not place undue reliance upon memory or demeanour. It should compare the evidence of witnesses with contemporaneous documents and start from the position that such documents are likely to be the most reliable source of evidence.
27. The Registered Person is a person of good character. She has no convictions or cautions, and no adverse regulatory findings recorded against her.
28. The Committee has read a number of testimonials from people who have known the Registered Person a long time and worked with her. They speak highly of her personal qualities, and in particular her honesty and integrity.
29. That does not mean the Registered Person cannot have acted as she is alleged to have done but it is something which the Committee must bear in mind her good character to her advantage in two ways:
i) Good character indicates that she is less likely to have been dishonest, and
ii) It adds to the weight we should attach to her evidence.
30. How much weight the Committee attaches to the Registered Person’s character is entirely a matter for us in light of all the evidence and bearing in mind Mr. Goodwin’s careful submissions, the Committee should give it very considerable weight.
31. Before turning to questions of integrity and dishonesty, the Committee should have clearly in mind that the case on integrity and dishonesty is put on the basis of the allegation at particular 2 d). It is accepted that if particular 2d) is not found proved, the issue of dishonesty and integrity does not arise.
32. With regard to dishonesty, the Committee should bear in mind the following.
33. Dishonesty is a question of fact like any other. The burden of proving it rests upon the ARB and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. There is no enhanced standard of proof although the Committee will of course approach such a serious allegation with the care that it merits and, if it makes a finding of dishonesty, it will identify the evidence upon which it relies and explain why it leads the Committee to that conclusion.
34. There is seldom direct evidence of dishonesty. It is something upon which the Committee is invited to draw an inference from the facts it has found. Everything in the advice about identifying the facts found and explaining why the Committee draws an inference applies in particular on this question.
35. In order to establish dishonesty, the ARB does not have to prove a motive, although it is likely to assist the Committee to ask if there is a motive in this case.
36. The test the Tribunal must apply has been set out by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd 2017 UKSC 67
Para (74) “When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain-(subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts.
The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held.
When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.”
37. Turning to integrity, the Committee received and accepted the following advice derived from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wingate and Evans -v- SRA and SRA -v- Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366:
“In professional codes of conduct, the term “integrity” is a useful shorthand to express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which the professions expect from their own members. … The underlying rationale is that the professions have a privileged and trusted role in society. In return they are required to live up to their own professional standards.”

The Committee’s approach to the witnesses
38. The Committee deals with the details of their evidence, where appropriate. Nevertheless, the Committee wished to set out at this stage the view it formed of each of the witnesses after comparing their evidence to the contemporaneous documents put before the Committee and all the other evidence.
39. The Committee found that the Referrer assisted the Committee in his written and oral evidence by setting out much of the background relied upon by the Committee. The Referrer acknowledged his anger at the professionals, including the Registered Person, who he told the Committee had let him down.
40. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the Registered Person’s positive qualities and gave evidence without prompting that he had seen her regularly at the building works, often more than once a fortnight. The Committee acknowledges that without this evidence, there was no independent evidence or contemporaneous record that the Registered Person had attended the building work at all. The Committee accepted his evidence entirely.
41. The Committee also observed that there is no dispute that the Referrer has suffered greatly both professionally and personally as a result of the failure of the building works at his home, whoever is responsible for that failure.
42. Mr Bates also assisted the Committee with his balanced approach to the Registered Person’s work. Despite his criticisms of her drawings in respect of the roof and the work specifications, he acknowledged freely that some of her drawings relating to internal design were of a high standard.
43. The Registered Person gave evidence to the Committee. The Committee accepted that she was doing her best to tell the Committee what had happened. Despite the absence of records and gaps in the contemporaneous records, it found no reason to reject her account as deliberately false. However, there were occasions, dealt with below, when the Committee decided that the Registered Person found it hard to accept how far she had fallen below what was required of her and struggled to distinguish what she had done from what she wished she had done.
44. Ms. SJgave evidence of the Registered Person’s uncertainty about what to do regarding the certificate of Practical Completion, and how she had discussed it with her. The Committee found that her evidence was properly limited to the matters that she could speak about, and accepted her evidence as being honest and straightforward.

Particular 2(b) – Did not adequately inspect the works before issuing the Practical Completion Certificate;
45. The Committee reminded itself that the Registered Person admitted at the outset that she had not inspected the roof of the extension before it was closed, in the way that she should have done.
46. Mr. Bates acknowledged that despite his concerns, the only areas where he found that the Registered Person had not conducted adequate inspection related to the roof. Nevertheless, his criticism was not limited to the failure to inspect the roof before it was covered, but also to the lead, which was part of the protection of the roof.
47. He had looked at the photographs in a surveyor’s report prepared in August 2021 and observed that in many areas the lead had been carried out “to an appalling standard” and was probably the worst that he had seen.
48. He fairly acknowledged that he relied upon photographs taken in August 2021, shortly after the Registered Person had written an email to the Referrer saying, “I thought the lead install looked okay.” He could not rule out that the lead had been redone since work on the roof had finished.
49. In her evidence, the Registered Person said that she recalled having inspected the roof from inside the property, and it was satisfactory, and not as shown in the photographs. However, she had no record of carrying out an inspection, and no recollection of when or how she carried out that inspection.
50. The Committee also had regard to a letter written to the ARB by the Registered Person on 19 September 2024 in which the Registered Person wrote, “It was not possible to closely inspect the roofs, and from a distance, there were no visible signs that they had been incorrectly installed.”
51. The Committee acknowledged that it cannot entirely rule out that the lead on the roof had been altered. However, the Committee concluded that it was highly unlikely because the work necessary to put the lead in the state shown in the photographs would have involved removing almost all the lead on the roof and putting it back in a far worse state than it had been in the first place, for no obvious reason.
52. The Committee also reminded itself that the Registered Person was the contract administrator, and she knew of no such work. There is no record of such work. There is no reason advanced why this extensive counterproductive work should have been carried out. The Committee concluded that the suggestion that such work had been carried out was pure speculation.
53. The Committee had regard to all this evidence, including the absence of any record that the Registered Person inspected the lead, the absence of any detail of how or when she inspected it, and her letter of 19 September 2024 in which she spoke only of inspecting the roofs “from a distance”. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s assertion that she recalled that she had inspected the lead work was likely to be wrong at this distance of time. The likelihood is that the Registered Person did not adequately inspect the roof in any respect, including the lead work.

Particular 2 (d) Certified that Practical Completion had occurred when she knew it had not.

The evidence
54. The ARB’s case on this particular, is based upon the documentation before the Committee.
55. The Committee saw that on 20 December 2021, the Registered Person certified that Practical Completion had taken place on 6 June 2021. There is no dispute that from a practical point of view, that meant that the work was finished and can be used as intended. In this case, it meant that the Referrer and his partner could move into the building and live in it.
56. There is also no dispute that within a few days of 6 June, significant defects became apparent, which meant that the building became effectively uninhabitable.
57. The Committee saw a letter dated 12 November 2021, from Solicitors acting for DoBuild in which they wrote to the Registered Person, “it is also clear that you are obliged to certify Practical Completion pursuant to clause 2.9 of the Build Contract.”
58. The Committee saw an email from the Referrer dated 22 November 2021, indicating that he too thought it was her obligation under the contract to sign the Practical Completion certificate.
59. The Committee saw an email from the Registered Person dated 2 December, setting out why she did not feel that she could issue a Practical Completion certificate.
60. The Committee also saw a letter dated 17 December from the Referrer’s agents, who had been described to her as his solicitors, sent to the Referrer and forwarded to her in which they also proposed that she should issue a “Practical Completion certificate (clause 2.9) back dated, based upon handover being on 6 June 2021.”
61. The Committee also saw the emails in which the Registered Person sought the advice of her indemnity insurers. It saw the response from the insurers that they were content for the Registered Person to sign the completion certificate if she thought it the right thing to do. It also saw the emails in which the Registered Person circulated drafts before issuing the certificate and associated documentation and forwarded the certificate she completed to her insurers and the parties.
62. The Registered Person gave evidence on this issue. She acknowledged that she had initially thought that she could not issue a Practical Completion certificate in light of all that had happened from the middle of June 2021. She described how she had considered the position in light of the representations made to her. She had listened to Mr. PG, whom she believed to be a solicitor, she had researched the subject further, including purchasing around this time a book entitled “JCT Contract Administration Pocket Book” which she drew to the Committee’s attention and she told the Committee, “I concluded that the right thing would be to issue that certificate based on my knowledge and belief on 6 June (2021).”
63. The Registered Person was clear that she had done the right thing on the basis of the evidence before her at the time, although in light of the reaction to what she had done, she told the Committee that if a similar situation ever arose again, she would take her own legal advice.
64. In answer to questions from the committee, the Registered Person explained that although she had considerable experience as an architect, that experience had been largely limited to design intent work. She told the Committee that this was the second time only that she had worked as a contract administrator.
65. In her evidence, she emphasised that she thought Mr. PG was a solicitor and believed that a solicitor would not tell her to do anything that was wrong.
66. The Committee also heard the evidence of Ms SJ. She told the Committee that she had discussed the question of the certificate with the Registered Person. She described her as trying to understand her contractual obligations. She was aware that she had spoken to the insurers. She told the Committee that when they discussed the position, they thought they were following the client’s legal advice.

Submissions
67. As the Committee has indicated above, both the Case Presenter and Mr. Goodwin drew the Committee’s attention to the relevant law and guidance. The Committee observed that there was no dispute between them as to the law, and refers to the relevant provisions in its approach and decision set out in this decision.
68. The Case Presenter submitted that there is no dispute that the Registered Person did not believe that Practical Completion had occurred between 17 June 2021 (when the leaks at the property became apparent) and 17 December 2021.
69. He submitted that the Registered Person had been unable to explain why she had not issued the Practical Completion certificate between 6 and 17 June 2021.
70. He submitted that the issue was what the Registered Person genuinely believed on 20 December 2021 and he submitted that her account was internally inconsistent and should be rejected.
71. He submitted that the contemporaneous documents showed that the Registered Person did not think that Practical Completion had taken place as late as 2 December 2021 when she wrote an email setting out why she did not think she could issue a certificate of Practical Completion. He submitted that there was no adequate explanation about why she had changed her mind between that date and 20 December 2021.
72. He submitted that the book which the Registered Person had purchased said nothing about her approach of ignoring everything after 6 June 2021; she accepts that she did not turn to somebody more experienced, and he submitted the book does not provide a reasonable basis for the view that the Registered Person says she had formed.
73. He also submitted that there was no contemporaneous document setting out her reasoning about how she had changed her position on how to approach the signing of the certificate, and no contemporaneous evidence that the approach she now says she took was genuinely believed at the time. He submitted that the view she took was not reasonable, and although it was not a requirement that her belief be reasonable, it was an important factor in deciding whether her belief was genuinely held.
74. The Case Presenter summarised the position as follows. He submitted that:
i) There was no basis for the Registered Person’s belief based in the textbook to which she referred;
ii) There was no contemporaneous record of the approach she adopted after 17 December 2021;
iii) The Registered Person’s belief is unreasonable, and this makes it unlikely that she held that view, namely that she could ignore everything that happened after 6 June 2021;
iv) The emails from Mr. PG of 17 December 2021 were putting pressure on the Registered Person to sign that Practical Completion had taken place, but did not seek to persuade her this was true. Indeed, he submitted there was nothing in Mr. PG’s email that supported her approach.
v) He submitted that in all the circumstances, it was most likely that she had signed the certificate of completion as a result of giving way to pressure, but not because she had genuinely changed her mind about whether she could sign the certificate.
75. Mr Goodwin submitted that the ARB had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the Registered Person knew that Practical Completion had not taken place. He drew the Committee’s attention to clause 2.9 of the building contract, and submitted that the question of whether a certificate of Practical Completion should be issued was a matter for the opinion of the contract administrator.
76. He acknowledged that, before signing the Practical Completion certificate on 20 December 2021, the Registered Person had written an email on 2 December 2021 to the Referrer in which she stated “I do not agree that the works were completed on 9 June 2021.” and set out her reasons by reference to defects which became apparent from mid-June 2021.
77. Nevertheless, he submitted that this evidence must be seen in the context of all the other evidence including:
i) The email from solicitors representing DoBuilds stating that it was the Registered Person’s duty to complete the certificate of Practical Completion;
ii) Emails from the Referrer, requesting her to sign the certificate of Practical Completion;
iii) The emails including that of 17 December 2021 from Mr PG of Edge, representing the Referrer, stating that she should sign the certificate, in circumstances where the Referrer had acknowledged that he had wrongly but quite innocently led the Registered Person to believe that Mr PG was a solicitor, and this was confirmed in the email correspondence.
iv) The Registered Person’s evidence that she did not believe that a solicitor would encourage her to do anything that was wrong;
v) The evidence, in a number of contemporaneous emails, showing that the Registered Person consulted her indemnity insurers, and asked their view about whether she should sign the certificate of Practical Completion;
vi) The email from her insurers indicating that they were content for her to sign the certificate of Practical Completion if she was satisfied it was the right thing to do;
vii) The evidence contained in the emails, that the Registered Person had copied in all the parties when issuing the certificate, and kept her professional indemnity insurers informed of what she had done;
viii) The evidence that the Registered Person had purchased a book in order to understand the position regarding Practical Completion;
ix) The evidence that she had discussed the position with her business partner;
x) The evidence that, although the Registered Person had been an architect for a number of years, this was only the second time that she had been contract administrator in a building project;
xi) The Registered Person’s good character, which he submitted, meant that it was extremely unlikely that she would do something which she knew to be wrong;
xii) The absence of any motive for the Registered Person to do something she knew was wrong either because she stood to gain from it, or because she was seeking to cover up some other wrongdoing or failure.
78. Mr Goodwin submitted that, taken as a whole, the evidence fell far short of what was necessary to establish that the Registered Person knew that Practical Completion had not taken place. He submitted that the more likely explanation was that the Registered Person had changed her view about issuing the certificate because her understanding had changed in light of all that she had learned.

The Committee’s decision
79. The Committee reminded itself that the ARB’s allegation was that when the Registered Person signed the Practical Completion certificate, she “knew” that Practical Completion had not taken place. The Committee accepted the advice of the chair that to know something is effectively to be sure of it.
80. The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person put under pressure by emails from Mr. PG at Edge proposing that the Registered Person issue a Practical Completion certificate backdated to early June 2021. The Committee accepts that this was similar to the assertion made by solicitors acting on behalf of DoBuild by a letter of 12 November 2021 in which they stated, “it is also clear that you are obliged to certify Practical Completion pursuant to clause 2.9 of the Build Contract.”
81. The Committee also accepts that the Registered Person had every reason to believe, and did believe, that Mr. PG was a solicitor, because that is what she had been told. The result was that the Registered Person had been told that she should (indeed, in one case, told she was obliged to) certify Practical Completion by two people she believed to be solicitors.
82. In those circumstances, the Committee accepted the Registered Person’s evidence that she did not believe that a solicitor would tell her to do something that was wrong.
83. The Committee also accepted the evidence that the Registered Person had attempted to study an issue with which she was unfamiliar by the purchase of a book, and had sought guidance from both her business partner, and her indemnity insurers. There is no dispute that the latter had said it was a matter for her and did not discourage her in circumstances where they knew of all that had occurred since June 2021.
84. The Committee also accepted that the Registered Person stood to gain nothing from signing the certificate and had been open and transparent about what she had done, including with her insurers.
85. The Committee also had careful regard to the Registered Person’s evidence of how she had considered all that had been said to her by the parties, including someone she believed was her own client’s solicitor. Accordingly she concluded over the weekend before 20 December 2021, that it was right that Practical Completion had occurred on 6 June 2021 because on 6 June 2021 she had not been aware of any defects.
86. The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person was properly and carefully cross-examined about the issue of whether defects that must have been present on 6 June in order to give rise to leaks on the 17 of June were properly called patent or latent defects, in simple language, whether or not they were defects that were capable of being discovered by reasonable diligence, even if they had not been discovered.
87. The Committee was satisfied that this did not assist the Committee to decide what the Registered Person believed in December 2021 when there is no evidence that she had studied this difference between patent and latent defects, or had addressed her mind to the question of whether the defects which became apparent throughout 2021 were defects that she could have discovered.
88. Finally, the Committee reminded itself of the clause in the contract which gave rise to the Registered Person’s duty to sign a certificate of completion. This clause provides:
“The Architect/Contract Administrator shall certify the date when in his opinion the Works have reached Practical Completion and DoBuild has complied sufficiently with clause 3.9 in respect of the supply of documents and information.”
89. Taking the evidence as a whole, the Committee’s view was that, largely because of her inexperience in acting as a contract administrator and being responsible for deciding when practical completion had occurred, the Registered Person was either unaware or unsure of her obligations during 2021. The Committee found there was force in the observation of Mr. Bates that when carrying out her obligations, the Registered Person “Did not know what she was looking for.” The Committee found that this view was supported by the observation of the Referrer that he had formed the impression, after working with the Registered Person over a considerable period, that she “did not know what she was doing.”
90. The Committee acknowledges that there may well be some criticism of the process by which the Registered Person came to the conclusion that she should certify Practical Completion had occurred on 6 June 2021, despite what had happened subsequently. It observed that when she was asked how she would do things differently today, she answered without hesitation, “get legal advice.”
91. Nevertheless, the Committee accepts that the Registered Person acted in the way she believed that two lawyers had told her was the right way and to which her indemnity insurers had raised no objection.
92. Accordingly, having regard to all the circumstances, including what was said to the Registered Person by people she believed to be lawyers, the openness with which she acted, and her good character, the Committee is satisfied that the evidence adduced by the ARB falls short of persuading it that the Registered Person “knew” that Practical Completion had not occurred 6 June 2021 when she signed the certificate to that effect on 20 December 2021.
93. Accordingly, the Committee finds Particular 2d of the allegation not proved.

Particular 3 – The Registered Person’s actions at Particular 2d lacked integrity and/or were dishonest.
94. There is no dispute that Particular 3 is wholly dependent upon finding Particular 2d proved. In those circumstances, the Committee finds Particular 3 not proved.
95. That completes the fact stage of these proceedings.

Decision on Unacceptable Professional Conduct (‘UPC’)
96. Having found Particulars 1, 2a, 2b and 2c of the Allegation proved, the Committee went on to consider whether the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC).

Submissions and advice
97. The Committee heard submissions from the Case Presenter and Mr Goodwin. Both advocates reminded the Committee that UPC is a matter for the independent judgement of the Committee, rather than proof. Accordingly, there is no burden or standard of proof to be applied.
98. The Case Presenter drew the Committee’s attention to section 14(1)(a) of the Architects Act 1997 and the relevant authorities, to which the Committee refers in its decision.
99. The Case Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct breached standards 2.1 and 6.1 of The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”), which was the code in force at the time of the matters with which the Committee is concerned and which the Committee sets out below.
100. He submitted that in each case, the Committee should consider what harm was caused by the breach and the risk of harm. He submitted that where an architect on a project was both designer and contract administrator, the outcome should be that the building is watertight. He reminded the Committee that in this case remedial work had been necessary between June and October of 2021.
101. He submitted that in this case, where the Registered Person was both designer and Contract Administrator, the Committee did not need to decide whether defects were the result of poor design or poor administration because the Registered Person was responsible for both.
102. He submitted that by failing to issue Interim Certificates, the Registered Person risked causing serious harm, not merely on one or two occasions, but throughout the project. He drew the Committee’s attention to the document in the bundle listing the variations to the contract works which took place throughout the project and their values. He submitted that the tract provisions were there to protect all parties and provide the transparency and formality necessary.
i. He submitted that the High Court in Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin) established that, when deciding UPC, the Committee could look at the position as a whole, as well as looking at each individual particular of the Allegation.
ii. Mr Goodwin submitted that for conduct to amount to UPC, it must be serious. Not every failure to comply with the code would automatically amount to UPC.
iii. He submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to a single set of failings on one project and did not amount to a pattern of conduct across a number of projects. He reminded the Committee that the Registered Person had made admissions in respect of her failings and invited the Committee to consider carefully whether they were sufficiently serious to amount to UPC.
iv. On this question, Mr. Goodwin invited the Committee to have regard to the nature and scope of the Registered Person’s failings. He reminded the Committee that Mr. Bates had acknowledged that some of the Registered Person’s drawings were of a high standard. He also reminded the Committee that Building Control Approved Inspectors had made seven visits to the site and found nothing wrong.
v. He submitted that the Committee should conclude that the Registered Person was not indifferent to her obligations because she had conscientiously visited the site regularly and held back valuations when she thought it appropriate.
vi. The Committee accepted the advice of the chair, which it followed in its approach set out below.

The Committee’s approach
103. The reminded itself that a finding of UPC is a matter for its own independent judgment having regard to the facts found proved. There is no burden or standard of proof.
104. 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.
105. The Committee bore in mind the ARB guidance in which UPC is defined as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a Registered Person. In reaching its findings on UPC, 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 give rise to disciplinary proceedings or a finding of UPC.
106. The general test is whether he or she has fallen seriously short of the standard of conduct expected of a member of the profession in the circumstances.
107. The conduct found proved must be serious in order for UPC to be found. The question of what is serious or not in the context is not a technical legal exercise but a question for the skilled judgement of the Professional Conduct Committee.
108. In deciding whether the facts found proved amount to UPC the Committee also had regard to Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). It bore in mind in reaching its decision 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” was required. (The Committee observed that this is old fashioned language meaning that they would regard it as disgraceful).
109. The Committee also took into account the observation made by Kerr J in Shaw v The General Osteopathic Council [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin) that, although the conduct in question must be sufficiently serious, it does not need to be of such gravity that imposing an admonishment would be too lenient.
110. The Committee also had regard to the case of Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin), which provided that the Committee should look at the picture as a whole when deciding SPI, and by implication, UPC.

The Committee’s decision
111. The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s conduct breached the following standards of the Code:
2.1 You are expected to be competent to carry out the professional work you undertake to do, and if you engage others to do that work they should be competent and adequately supervised.

6.1 You are expected to carry out your work with skill and care and in accordance with the terms of your engagement.

112. The Committee reminded itself that not all breaches of the code will amount to UPC. Nevertheless, the Committee observed that each of the matters found proved was serious because they gave rise to a risk of significant harm to the Registered Person’s client.
113. With regard to the matters admitted and found proved at Particular 1, the Committee acknowledged that some of the Registered Person’s drawings were found to be of a high standard. Nevertheless, her drawings and designs relating to the crucial areas of the building, in particular the roof, fell far short of what was necessary.
114. In the Committee’s view, there can be little doubt that the inadequate drawings were one of the factors contributing to the roof not being watertight.
115. Turning to the Registered Person’s failings as contract administrator, the Committee had regard to a list of variations to the design of the building none of which were covered by instructions. With regard to the issue of Interim Certificates (2c), the Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person scrutinised some of the requests for payment during the course of the building work. Nevertheless, there was no formal issue of certificates, and accordingly, no proper record of what had been paid in respect of the work carried out during the course of the building.
116. The Committee is satisfied that these failings gave rise to a risk that there would be no formal record of work done and payments made if a dispute arose between the client and the building contractor.
117. Turning to the Registered Person’s failure adequately to inspect the building work (2b), the Committee is satisfied that this was at the heart of the Registered Person’s failure to carry out her function as contract administrator. The Committee read and heard the uncontradicted evidence of Mr Bates that the construction of the roof was far below the standard required for it to be watertight and that if the Registered Person had inspected with due diligence, it was likely that she would have seen the defects.
118. The Committee found that this risk should have been obvious to the Registered Person, not least because of the nature of her roof design, the difficulties which she told the Committee that DoBuild had in understanding “the geometry” of her designs and the many variations of the design which she had agreed but not formerly approved in writing.
119. For these reasons, the Committee found this to be a particularly serious failing, with serious results for the Referrer.
120. The Committee also examined the Registered Person’s failings as a whole throughout the project. The Committee accepted Mr Goodwin’s submission that the Registered Person’s failings occurred during a single project. However, the Committee did not accept that they could be described as isolated because they continued over several months and ranged from a failure to provide adequate drawings, through failure to keep a proper record of variations in the design and stage payments to a failure to inspect work to the roof, with serious consequences.
121. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct, taken individually and as a whole, amounted to UPC.

122. Having found the Registered Person guilty of UPC, the Committee considered which, if any, sanction to impose.

Submissions and advice
123. The Committee heard submissions from the Case Presenter and Mr Goodwin. Both advocates reminded the Committee of the relevant provisions of the ARB Sanctions Guidance.
124. Both advocates acknowledged that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish a Registered Person, but to protect members of the public, uphold confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of competence and conduct for the profession.
125. Both advocates reminded the Committee of the available sanctions and reminded the Committee of the correct approach to selecting a sanction that is proportionate, (that is to say sufficiently restrictive to meet the needs of a sanction, but no more restrictive) namely by starting with the least restrictive sanction and progressing through the sanctions to the one that achieves the Committee’s aim.
126. The Case Presenter drew the Committee’s attention to the following aggravating features:
i. The Committee has found that the Registered Person’s conduct caused significant foreseeable harm to the Referrer and risked further harm.
ii. The Registered Person’s conduct, although confined to a single project, was wide-ranging, and repeated over several months.
127. The Case Presenter submitted that mitigating factors carried less weight in circumstances where public safety is an issue, or the conduct is particularly serious.
128. He reminded the Committee of the areas of concern, which gave rise to the finding of UPC, and helpfully took the Committee to the relevant passages of the Sanctions Guidance.
129. Mr Goodwin reminded the Committee that it does not have to make a disciplinary order and emphasised that the purpose of a sanction was to protect the public and not to punish a Registered Person.
130. Mr Goodwin submitted that the following mitigating features are present:
i. The Registered Person’s unblemished career;
ii. The degree of insight and remediation that the Registered Person demonstrated in her evidence and by her admissions;
iii. The fact that the conduct was confined to a single project and had not been repeated since.
131. Mr Goodwin submitted that the Registered Person had shown insight into how to conduct herself in future as a contract administrator and was not a risk to the public. He also submitted that the evidence showed that the Registered Person was not someone who didn’t care, but had demonstrated that she was conscientious, although she had not carried out her duties inappropriately.
132. Mr Goodwin submitted that there was no evidence of a current risk to the public because of the Registered Person’s good disciplinary record and because there had been no repetition in the five years since the matters giving rise to this case. He also reminded the Committee of what he described as “clear evidence of remorse and insight.”
133. Mr Goodwin submitted that in those circumstances there was no need for a sanction, which restricted the Registered Person’s ability to practise as an architect.
134. The Committee heard the legal advice of the chair in private that the law had been correctly stated by both the Case Presenter and Mr Goodwin.

The Committee’s decision
135. The Committee had regard to all the evidence in this case the findings it made at both the fact and UPC stage of the proceedings. It also had regard to the ARB Sanctions Guidance.
136. The Committee identified the following aggravating features:
i. The Registered Person’s conduct had caused significant harm to her client, and given rise to further risks, which the Committee identified at the UPC stage;
ii. The Registered Person’s failings were wide-ranging and persisted over a significant period of time.
137. The Committee identified the following mitigating features.
i. The Registered Person has no previous matters recorded against her;
ii. There has been no repetition of misconduct in the five years since the events giving rise to these proceedings;
iii. The Registered Person demonstrated some insight by the extensive admissions that she made. When answering questions from the committee, the Registered Person explained the steps she was taking to prevent repetition.
138. The Committee also observed that the Registered Person’s conduct, although serious, did not fall within one of the areas identified by the ARB as being the most serious types of misconduct and likely to result in erasure.
139. The Committee balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and found that although the Registered Person’s conduct was serious, it was not of the most serious kind.
140. The Committee also reminded itself that it had accepted the Registered Person’s evidence that she had been inexperienced in the role of contract administrator in 2021 and had now learned how to carry out her duties as contract administrator so that she inspected work conscientiously and kept proper records.
141. The Committee was reassured by the testimonial evidence, which indicated that the Registered Person was well thought of by people who worked with her and demonstrated that she can work effectively in the context of a building project.
142. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that the risk of the Registered Person repeating her conduct in the future was now low.
143. Against this background, the Committee considered each of the available sanctions in turn.
144. The Committee considered first whether it should impose no sanction. The Committee had regard to paragraph 6.1 of Sanctions Guidance and concluded that this case was far too serious to impose no sanction and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify taking that course.
145. The Committee then considered imposing a reprimand. The Committee had regard to the matters set out in paragraph 6.2 of Sanctions Guidance. The Committee concluded that this was not a matter that fell at the lower end of the scale of seriousness and reminded itself that the UPC found in this case was not an isolated incident. Accordingly imposing a reprimand would be insufficient to protect the public, uphold proper standards of conduct and maintain public confidence in the profession.
146. A penalty order may be considered appropriate where one or more of the following factors are present (this list is not exhaustive):
i. The failings found are too serious to warrant a reprimand;
ii. There is evidence of limited insight or remorse.
147. The Committee concluded that a penalty order was open to it in this case. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the sanction it imposed was sufficient to protect the public, the Committee considered carefully whether it should impose a suspension order.
148. The Committee considered paragraph 6.4.1 and 6.4.3 of the Sanctions Guidance which provide:
i. 6.4.1 A suspension order may be imposed by the PCC for serious offences, but where the circumstances are not so serious as to warrant erasure from the Register. A suspension has a deterrent effect and can be used to send out a signal to the profession and to the public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting of an architect.
ii. 6.4.3 A suspension order may be considered appropriate where one or more of the following factors are present (this list is not exhaustive):
a. The failing or conduct is so serious that a reprimand or penalty order would be insufficient to protect the public or uphold public confidence in the profession;
b. The behaviour is not fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect;
c. There is no evidence of entrenched integrity issues;
d. There is a lack of sufficient insight or remorse;
e. The PCC is satisfied that the behaviour is unlikely to be repeated;
f. The conduct is capable of being rectified;
g. There is no evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since the incident;
h. The architect has failed to pay a previously imposed penalty order.

149. Taking all these matters together, the Committee concluded that it was not necessary to impose a suspension order in this case because of the following factors:
i. The Registered Persons’ relative inexperience in 2021 in the role as contract administrator;
ii. The degree of insight and remediation she had demonstrated both by her evidence and also the extensive admissions she made to the Allegation in this case;
iii. The steps the Registered Person has taken to reduce the risk of repetition;
iv. The fact that this is the first disciplinary matter recorded against the Registered Person.

150. Accordingly, the Committee then considered what is the appropriate amount of a penalty order in this case. It decided that the order should be the maximum available, namely £2,500, to demonstrate that the Registered Person’s conduct fell close to requiring a suspension order.
151. Accordingly, the Committee imposed a penalty order in the sum of £2,500.
152. Committee directs that the Penalty Order be paid in full by close of business on 30 November 2026. Should the Registered Person to make an application to vary the payment terms, an application must be submitted to the ARB for consideration by the Consent Order Panel Chair.
153. That concludes this hearing.