ARB’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) issued a reprimand to architect Philip Syborn after he failed to carry out the agreed works within a reasonable time frame
Philip Syborn was appointed to assist with concept and planning drawings for the submission of a pre-planning application to redesign the top floor of his client’s property and the adjoining disused garage in London.
Allegations
It was alleged that Syborn did not enter into a written agreement with his client which adequately covered the terms of engagement, contrary to standard 4.4 of the Architects Code.
This allegation was admitted by Philip Syborn at the outset of the hearing. It was also alleged that he failed to carry out the agreed works within a reasonable time period and that he failed to effectively communicate with his client. Both of these latter allegations were denied.
The PCC found the allegation in relation to the failure to issue adequate terms and the failure to effectively communicate with his client proven, and that these failings were serious enough to amount to UPC.
The PCC noted that it is the architect’s responsibility to ensure that the terms of engagement used are compliant with the requirements of the Code.
Observations
In this case, the PCC was satisfied that Syborn had not fully complied with those requirements. The PCC also noted that Syborn failed to adequately respond to a series of emails from his client and as a result, he failed to effectively communicate with his client.
They did not however find that Syborn had failed to carry out his work without undue delay.
The PCC noted that Syborn had demonstrated genuine insight and remorse, had apologised for his behaviour and that he made open and frank admissions at an early stage.
He also had taken remedial action to change his practice to prevent the misconduct from reoccurring and that this was a single episode in a previously unblemished career approaching 40 years.
The PCC decided that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
