Ms Teresa Jane Blakeley

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

TERESA JANE BLAKELEY (059556J)

_______________

Held as a video conference on:

19-21 November 2024

_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Legally Qualified Chair)
Robert Dearman (PCC Architect Member)
Alastair Cannon (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) was represented by Mr James Lloyd (“the Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Ms Teresa Jane Blakeley (“the Registered Person”) has attended the hearing and was legally represented by Mr Robert Stevenson after the close of the ARB case on the first day.

 

Allegation

1. The Registered Person faces an allegation that she has been convicted of a criminal offence other than an offence which has no material relevance to her fitness to practise as an architect contrary to section 15(b) of the Architects Act 1997 (“the Act”) and is liable to a disciplinary order.

2. On 5 March 2024 the Registered Person was convicted at the Magistrates’ Court of Greffe Jersey (“the Court”), of the following offences:

i. Teresa Jane Blakeley between the 1 November 2021 and 11 October 2022, in the island of Jersey, with an attempt to obtain an award for herself furnished false information and documents regarding a tenancy agreement and payment of rent. Art 16 Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007.

ii. Teresa Jane Blakeley between 11 October 2022 and 21st March 2023 in the island of Jersey, deliberately and falsely represented to the States of Jersey Customer and Local Services (CLS) that rent monies had been paid by way of deduction of monies owed by the Landlord in pursuance of a rental and renovations agreement with the Landlord, intending to cause gain to the said Teresa Jane Blakeley and prejudice to CLS, attempting to benefit to the sum of £5,740.59 which had been calculated as being overpaid. Common law.

3. The fact of the conviction was evidenced by a certificate of conviction from the Court. The Registered Person was sentenced on the day of conviction to two concurrent 140-hour community service orders or 8 months imprisonment.

4. The associated police report stated that in November 2021 the Registered Person completed an online Income Support application form to claim Income Support Benefit in respect of assistance for payment of rent. In the claim, the Registered Person stated that she was paying £1,900 rent each month to her landlord, whom she named as her mother. Within the form the Registered Person advised that her rent had been increased from £173.33 per month to £1,900 per month and that she was unable to meet this increase as she was working part-time due to a health condition. The form included a declaration, completed by the Registered Person, that she was aware that she would be liable for prosecution if she provided information which was false.

5. The staff dealing with the application queried why the Registered Person’s bank statements did not show any rent payments at all. The Registered Person sent emails in response explaining that she was not paying rent because of an agreement with the landlord connected to the costs of renovations to the property that she was undertaking herself.

6. Witness statements were taken by the Enforcement Investigations Officer from the Registered Person’s mother (“GF”) and brother (“KF”). KF advised that GF was the owner of the property, was 93 years old and partially sighted with limited mobility. KF and his brother had a lasting power of attorney for GF that had been in place since January/February 2021. KF confirmed that no rent had been received for the property since 2009. He stated that there had never been a lease agreement between GF and the Registered Person and that GF had never given permission for any alterations to the property.

7. GF also confirmed that she had signed a document given to her by the Registered Person but she had not read it as she was in a rush but that she never knowingly signed any formal renovations agreement. The managing agent for the property confirmed to the Enforcement Investigations Officer that the agent did not hold a signed tenancy agreement as the Registered Person had refused to sign one.

8. The police report summarises that the Registered Person failed to inform the appropriate authority of any change in circumstances since receiving her first Income Support payment in February 2022. She also failed to declare that she did not have a signed tenancy agreement in place when she began receiving Income Support payments. Further, she failed to declare that there was no standing order set up and failed to declare that she had not made actual rental payments to the landlord (GF) when she began receiving her Income Support payments on 1 February 2022. It was determined that there had been an overpayment of Income Support benefit to the Registered Person totalling £5,740.59.

9. The Registered Person supplied a document to the Enforcement Investigations Officer contesting the overpayment and providing a document entitled “The renovation and rental agreement”; this had not been submitted previously by the Registered Person. It is noted in the police report that the signature of GF appeared to have been superimposed on the document.

10. On 5 April 2023, the Registered Person attended for a formal recorded interview under caution. The Registered Person read out a prepared statement and thereafter answered “no comment” to any questions. On 12 January 2024 the Registered Person was charged with the two offences of benefit fraud. She appeared before the Magistrates Court on 5 March 2024 and entered a guilty plea to both offences and was sentenced to eight months imprisonment or 140 hours of community service. The overpayment was repaid by the Registered Person.

11. ARB was notified of the conviction by an anonymous source and opened an investigation. During the ARB investigation the Registered Person asserted that she had completed the online Income Support claim form in November 2021, requesting payments of £1,900 per month, as a “worst case scenario” as she had intended to negotiate a lower monthly rent. The Registered Person received Income Support between February and October 2022 but she did not pay rent during that time due to a dispute with her brothers. She says the Income Support claim was closed on 4 October 2022.

12. As the Registered Person was convicted on 5 March 2024, the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”) applies. Criminal convictions are referred to in the General Guidance section of the Code as follows:

‘A criminal conviction may be materially relevant to your fitness to practise, if, for example (this list is not exhaustive):
It constitutes an offence under the Architects Act 1997 or other legislation directly affecting architects;
It arises directly out of your professional activities;
It constitutes an offence of dishonesty;
It otherwise calls into question your integrity.’

13. The ARB submits that the convictions are materially relevant to the Registered Person’s fitness to practise because they are offences of dishonesty and call her honesty and integrity into question. It is alleged that the Registered Person’s convictions breach Standards 1.1 and 9.2 of the Code.

Finding on Material Relevance of the Conviction

14. The Committee considered the allegation as set out below:

(The Registered Person) has been convicted of a criminal offence other than an offence which has no material relevance to her fitness to practise as an architect, in that she was convicted on 5 March 2024 of:

i. Teresa Jane Blakeley between the 1 November 2021 and 11 October 2022, in
the island of Jersey, with an attempt to obtain an award for herself furnished
false information and documents regarding a tenancy agreement and payment
of rent. Art 16 Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007.
ii. Teresa Jane Blakeley between 11 October 2022 and 21st March 2023 in the
island of Jersey, deliberately and falsely represented to the States of Jersey Customer and Local Services (CLS) that rent monies had been paid by way of deduction of monies owed by the Landlord in pursuance of a rental and renovations agreement with the Landlord, intending to cause gain to the said Teresa Jane Blakeley and prejudice to CLS, attempting to benefit to the sum of £5,740.59 which had been calculated as being overpaid. Common law.

15. The Committee noted that, upon having the charge read, the Registered Person admitted the fact of the convictions but denied that they were materially relevant to her fitness to practise. The Committee noted that the conviction was proved by way of the certificate of conviction provided by the Magistrates Court of Jersey.

16. The Committee had regard to the content of the Code published in 2017.The Committee also had regard to the advice of the Chair that, in respect of disputed issues, the burden of proof was on the ARB and that the standard of proof was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. 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. The fact that the Registered Person chose to give evidence does not shift the burden onto her, it remains throughout on the ARB at this stage.

17. In reaching its decision the Committee considered the submissions made by both parties together with the evidence presented to it. The Committee considered the bundle prepared by ARB and the bundle of evidence presented by the Registered Person “JB1” noting that she did not rely upon the content of the witness statements of GF and KF.

18. The Registered Person gave evidence. She adopted her witness statement dated 13 November 2024 as her evidence in chief. She stated that her guilty pleas were entered on legal advice. She asserted that her failing was not the making of the application for income support, but that she was wrong in failing to notify the authorities of a change in her circumstances connected to a dispute as to the rental agreement.

19. In cross-examination the Registered Person accepted that, by her guilty pleas, she had accepted the factual basis of the allegations and that her plea was not qualified by a written basis of facts that differed to those set out in the charge.

20. The Registered Person accepted that she has not sought to appeal the conviction. She also accepted that the fact of the convictions brought her personal reputation into disrepute but denied that the reputation of the wider profession had been adversely impacted. She explained that the adverse publicity of her convictions had been limited to the local newspaper on the island of Jersey.

21. The Presenter, closing for the ARB, submitted that Standard 1.1 of the Code was clearly breached by the fact of the convictions for offences of dishonesty and Standard 9.2 was breached if the conduct in question brings either the Registered Person or the profession into disrepute. He submitted that, although the Registered Person accepted her personal reputational damage, the disrepute went beyond this and impacted the wider profession. He submitted that the convictions were plainly material to fitness to practise.

22. In closing for the Registered Person, Mr Stevenson submitted that not all convictions for offences of dishonesty must inevitably lead to censure by a professional body and that these convictions did not relate to the Registered Person’s practise as an architect.

23. The Committee considered the legal advice provided by the Chair, which it accepted. The Committee noted the following authorities in relation to the relevance of criminal convictions to a professional person’s fitness to practise.

24. In the case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Ghaffar (2014) EWHC 2723 (Admin) Carr J stated (at 51-53) that although a finding of impairment does not necessarily follow a conviction for dishonesty, it will be an unusual case in which dishonesty is not found to impair fitness to practise.

25. The policy established by caselaw (example GMC v Spackman (1943) AC 627 and Achina v General Pharmaceutical Council (2021) EWHC 415 (Admin)) confirms that the fact of a conviction is not a matter that is subject to challenge by the Registered Person (save in exceptional circumstances that do not arise in this case) and this Committee is not to relitigate the conviction. To allow a Registered Person to go behind the conviction and the underlying facts would endanger public confidence in the regulatory regime and the relationship with the criminal jurisdiction.

26. It is not the case that this Committee must limit its consideration only to whether the Registered Person’s abilities to practise as an architect have been impaired by the fact of the conviction. The Committee is entitled to find impairment on the basis that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances of the case. This principle was confirmed in the case of Ige v NMC (2011) EWHC 3721 (Admin).

27. The Committee is satisfied that the convictions are materially relevant to fitness to practise as an architect. The convictions are for offences of dishonesty and (per the decision in Ghaffar) there are no unusual factors present that would suggest that they are not materially relevant to the Registered Person’s fitness to practise.

28. The Committee noted that the first conviction relates to the Registered Person furnishing false information between 1 November 2021 and 11 October 2022 in order to obtain income support. The second conviction relates to deliberate acts of dishonesty during the investigation by Customer and Local Services (CLS) between 11 October 2022 and 21 March 2023. Specifically, the particulars of the conviction confirm that the false representation by the Registered Person was in connection with her assertion that rent had been paid by way of a “rental and renovations agreement with the landlord”. Therefore, the second conviction relates to a false representation made during the official investigation of the original income support overpayment. The Committee considered that this significantly compounded the seriousness of the first conviction.

29. The Committee was not persuaded by the evidence of the Registered Person that she was considering appealing the conviction and that she disputed the underlying facts of the charge. The guilty pleas had been entered with the benefit of legal advice and were entered to the charges as drafted. No alternative basis of plea was submitted to the Court disputing the underlying facts and no appeal had been lodged. The evidence of the Registered Person did not displace the presumption that the convictions and the underlying facts are not subject to challenge.

30. The publicity surrounding the convictions was not limited to Jersey as the news article is available via the internet. The reputation of the wider profession has been brought into disrepute alongside the personal reputation of the Registered Person and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if there was no finding that the convictions were materially relevant to fitness to practise.

31. The Committee considers that the Registered Person’s actions fell short of the following Standards of the Code:

i. Standard 1.1
ii. Standard 9.2

Sanction

32. Having found the Registered Person’s convictions had material relevance to her fitness to practise as an architect, contrary to section 15(b) of the Act, the Committee then went on to consider what, if any, sanction to impose in this case.

33. The Committee heard submissions from the Presenter for the ARB and Mr Stevenson for the Registered Person and received legal advice from the Chair, which it accepted. The Committee took careful note of the ARB Sanctions Guidance published in 2022.

34. The Committee received the following submissions from the Presenter. The ARB accepted that the sentence imposed on the Registered Person had been completed but referred to the “intractable” lack of insight to the offences of dishonesty to which she had pleaded guilty. This demonstrated, he submitted, an attitude that was inconsistent with rehabilitation or remediation, referencing the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council and Dighton (2020) EWHC 3122 (Admin).

35. The Presenter referred the Committee to relevant factors within the ARB sanction guidance including the lack of insight, deliberate nature of the conduct, the financial benefit derived from the conduct, entrenched integrity issues and the dishonesty involved in the conduct.

36. Reference was made to the case of Atkinson v GMC (2009) EWHC 3636 (Admin) that not every case involving dishonesty inevitably resulted in erasure if there were “compelling evidence of insight and a number of other factors upon which it could rely that the dishonesty in question appeared to be out of character or somewhat isolated…and accordingly there was a prospect of the individual returning to practice without the reputation of the profession being disproportionately damaged…”

37. Mr Stevenson did not call the Registered Person to give evidence but presented submissions that the case should be resolved by way of a reprimand. He took issue with the suggestion that the Registered Person lacked insight and pointed out that this was an isolated incident of “benefit fraud” and that she had made good the overpayment and that the conduct was not to be repeated. The conduct was not connected to professional practice and no clients were affected. He asserted that insight was demonstrated through the guilty pleas entered in respect of both offences.

38. Mr Stevenson submitted that the offences were committed as a result of financial pressure likely exerted by a family member increasing her rent. The same person had informed the authorities of the benefit fraud and had informed the ARB of the conviction before the Registered Person had the opportunity to self-refer. Reference was made to the letters in support of the Registered Person and that she was under stress at the time of the offences.

39. Mr Stevenson asserted that a more severe sanction than reprimand would not be appropriate, he stated that there were no entrenched integrity issues and the conduct was not incompatible with membership of the profession. The impact of erasure or suspension would be to deprive the Registered Person of her livelihood.

40. The Chair provided guidance and legal advice, summarised below, to the Committee who retired in the afternoon of the second day to consider what, if any, sanction should be imposed. The deliberations continued until the morning of the third day when the Registered Person applied to adduce a “letter of apology”. The Committee had not reached a decision and allowed the application under Rules 19, 27 and 28 to admit the letter in evidence.

41. The Committee noted the content of the letter indicated that the Registered Person suggested that she had not said all that she would have wished to. The Committee invited the Registered Person to review whether she wished to provide any further information or evidence. Having taken legal advice, she asked to be able to give evidence. The Presenter for the ARB did not formally object to the application but pointed out that there had been no procedural irregularity in the proceedings.

42. The Chair had already provided guidance on Rules 15, 27 and 28 that allow the Committee a discretion to admit any evidence that is fair and relevant, that evidence can be admitted at any stage before the imposition of a disciplinary order and that the Committee can depart from the standard procedure provided to do so is fair to the Registered Person and in the interest of justice. The Committee was satisfied that it was fair to the Registered Person to admit her evidence even at this late stage and any prejudice to the ARB would be mitigated by the ability to cross-examine the Registered Person.

43. The Registered Person gave evidence that she had reflected overnight and wished to express her remorse in clearer terms. She referred to her poor health at the relevant time and the context of the “raging family dispute” that lay in the background. She expressed that she had remorse for the impact on the wider profession.

44. In cross examination she was asked why she had carried out the income support fraud. She explained that there was a dramatic rise in rent and this compelled her to make a claim for assistance. When challenged that her convictions set out how she had lied and provided false documents, she denied lying and said that she had “made mistakes”. She denied providing false documents at any stage.

45. The Registered Person explained that her guilty pleas were entered on advice from her then lawyer. She did not accept the assertion advanced by the Presenter that her pleas accepted the truth of the criminal allegation.

46. The Registered Person stated that she wanted the Committee to understand that the reporting of her to the authorities for benefit fraud and the later referral to ARB were likely both carried out by the same family member. She accepted that she had not been “framed” by the family member and that she would have reported herself to the ARB following conviction, but she was “beaten to it” by a few days.

47. The Presenter pointed out that the Registered Person had given evidence on the first day of the hearing disputing that the wider profession had been impacted by her conduct, but she was now accepting that it had. She stated that she had not considered the matter before the first day of the hearing and she had since given the matter more thought and changed her mind. She resisted the suggestion that she was adapting her evidence to suit what she perceived the Committee ought to hear.

48. The Registered Person stated that her pleas were entered because she was advised that this would result in “a better outcome” and that she spent a long time thinking about her position before she entered the guilty pleas to the criminal charges. She said that her medical condition resulted in confusion and memory loss and this impacted her ability to notify the CLS of the change in her circumstances during the income support claim.

49. At the conclusion of the Registered Person’s evidence neither party wished to make any further submissions and the Committee retired to continue deliberations.

50. The Committee had regard to the public interest in disciplinary proceedings which includes the need to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and the ARB and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, behaviour and competence. The Committee was mindful that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive, although it may have a punitive effect, and that any sanction must balance the rights of the Registered Person against the need to uphold proper standards and protect the public.

51. The Committee first assessed seriousness with reference to the facts found proved during the hearing and by considering the competing aggravating and mitigating factors in accordance with the guidance provided by the case of Fuglers & Ors v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179.

52. The Committee had regard to the principle of proportionality; weighing the impact a sanction may have on the Registered Person against the need to protect the public and uphold professional standards.

53. The Committee was mindful that its interference with the Registered Person’s right to practise, whilst using the title of “architect”, must be no more than is absolutely necessary to achieve the Committee’s purpose in protecting the public and upholding public confidence in the profession.

54. In Patel v GMC (2003) UKPC 16 Lord Rodgers of Earlsferry stated that “for all professional persons…a finding of dishonesty lies at the top end in the spectrum of gravity of misconduct”. Dishonesty, even when it is related to matters outside the professional sphere, undermines trust and confidence in the profession. The courts have frequently supported the approach to exclude members from their professions where there has been a lack of probity and honesty. As Lord Bingham put it in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 , ‘the reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member.’

55. However, there is also a broad spectrum of dishonesty which the Committee must consider when determining the appropriate and proportionate sanction. Dishonest conduct can take many forms.

56. The ARB Guidance on Sanction sets out factors that would suggest erasure was the appropriate sanction in cases involving dishonesty. They are:

i. A deliberate cover up when things have gone wrong;
ii. Dishonesty resulting in a direct risk to clients or the wider public;
iii. Dishonesty affecting someone vulnerable;
iv. Dishonesty resulting in personal financial gain;
v. Premeditated, systematic or longstanding deception.

57. In contrast, incidents of opportunistic or spontaneous dishonesty, and one-off incidents may be considered less serious by the PCC and, therefore, potentially attracting a less severe sanction.

58. The Committee considered the following aggravating factors:

i. The period covered by the convictions spanned from November 2021 to March 2023. The Registered Person had opportunities throughout the period of the claim for income support where she could have corrected her failings, she did not do so.
ii. There is a persistent course of dishonest conduct evidenced by the second conviction which amounted to making false representations to the relevant authorities after the overpayment had been detected and while she was under formal investigation. This is an example of doing the wrong thing in a challenging situation. A professional person is expected to do the right thing in such circumstances.
iii. Although the Registered Person acknowledged her guilt by her plea, in evidence before the Committee she suggested that she was still contemplating appealing the conviction and attributed her guilty plea, in part, to the legal advice she received. She continued to deny that she lied or produced false documents despite this being the essence of the benefit fraud charges to which she pleaded guilty. This demonstrated a serious lack of insight.
iv. The Registered Person also failed to acknowledge that her conviction had any reputational damage on the wider profession until she changed her evidence on the third day of the hearing. This, too, adversely affected the credibility of her expressions of insight.

59. The Committee considered the following mitigating factors:

i. The Registered Person has a previous unblemished profession record with the ARB and good character save for the convictions that are the subject of this matter.
ii. The financial circumstances of the Registered Person at the time of the application for income support were challenging.
iii. The Registered Person has given unchallenged evidence that she was under stress and unwell at the time of the offences.

60. The Committee considered the character references from GC and SW (deceased) and viewed them in light of the factors set out at paragraph 5.5 of the ARB guidance on sanctions. The GC testimonial pre-dates both the guilty plea in the criminal proceedings and the ARB investigation therefore the author would not have been aware of the full allegations facing the Registered Person or her guilty plea. The testimonial from SW was dated 28 June 2010 and contains a note that SW died in September 2022. This appears to be a testimonial prepared for another purpose many years ago. These factors adversely affected the usefulness of the references, however, both testimonials spoke well of the personal qualities of the Registered Person.

61. The character reference from BP, a client of the Registered Person, dated 26 February 2024 attested to the Registered Person’s professional abilities. Mr JB provided a letter dated 4 November 2024 confirming the Registered Person’s support for the Jersey Hospital Community Group. Again, it is not clear that these testimonials were made in full knowledge of the allegations facing the Registered Person.

62. The Committee considered the letter from RL who described himself as the “appointed naturopath” for the Registered Person and provided a chronology of treatment and contact with the Registered Person between 23 June 2018 until 24 February 2024, the date of his letter. The Registered Person acknowledged that RL was not providing a medical diagnosis nor an expert medical opinion but simply providing a summary of the alternative treatment plan that the Registered Person was following. He described that the Registered Person had reported to him that she was under stress and was experiencing symptoms such as “memory loss/confusion” during the period between November 2021 and October 2022.

63. The Committee was not able to attach significant weight to the mitigating factors. The Committee is not satisfied that the Registered Person has been able to look back at her conduct with a self-critical eye. There is limited evidence that she has fully acknowledged fault, expressed contrition or apologised. The Committee was not satisfied that the Registered Person has fully understood her failings and the impact her actions had on the reputation of the wider profession. The limited insight demonstrated by her guilty pleas entered on 5 March 2024 must be viewed alongside the evidence, both written and oral, that she has failed to accept the full culpability set out in the underlying facts of the convictions.

64. The Committee was satisfied that this case is at a high level of seriousness. The convictions are for dishonesty and undermine the standing of the Registered Person and the wider profession.

65. When considering which sanction was most appropriate and proportionate the Committee adopted the approach set out in the case of Rashid v General Medical Council (reported at 2006 EWHC 886 Admin) to consider the least penalty first and to ask itself whether that is sufficient and, if not, then go on to the next, and so on.

66. The Committee first considered whether to take no action other than to mark the finding under section 15(b) of the Architects Act 1997. However, to do so would require exceptional circumstances to be present. The Committee is not of the view that the high level of seriousness could justify imposing no sanction.

67. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Reprimand. This sanction is appropriate for cases at the lower end of seriousness, which the Committee has already decided this case is not. Consequently, the Committee is satisfied that a Reprimand would be inappropriate given the Committee’s findings.

68. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Penalty Order. The Committee does not find that this sanction is appropriate as the failings are too serious. The evidence of insight is insufficient.

69. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Suspension. This sanction is appropriate for serious offences. The following factors were considered relevant:

i. The Registered Person’s lack of sufficient insight and continued refusal to accept the underlying facts of the convictions provided evidence of entrenched integrity issues. The fact that the Registered Person pleaded guilty must be weighed against the persistent denial of her full culpability.
ii. The proven dishonesty by virtue of the convictions is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect. The fraud was perpetrated against the public purse and was for financial gain.
iii. The second offence was committed as a deliberate attempt to mislead the investigation of the first offence. This compounds the seriousness of the first offence.

70. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Erasure. The Committee was satisfied that the conduct was so serious that only removal from the register will protect the public, uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession. The following factors were considered relevant:

i. The Registered Person has committed serious criminal offences
ii. The conduct, involving the commission of offences of dishonesty, is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect.
iii. The lack of sufficient insight does not allow the Committee to have full confidence that this or similar conduct will not occur in future.

71. There is an absence of any compelling evidence of insight or other factors that could satisfy the Committee that the dishonesty was isolated in duration and range. To allow the Registered Person to continue in practise would be to damage the reputation of the profession.

72. The order of the Committee is erasure. The Committee does not extend the minimum period of two years before the Registered Person can apply for restoration to the register. The restoration to the register will be subject to the consideration of the ARB Board who will be best placed to make that decision.

73. That concludes this determination.