Mr Jeremy Denn
THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of
Mr Jeremy Rolf Denn (053263K)
Emma Boothroyd (Chair)
Judy Carr (PCC Architect Member)
Steve Neale (PCC Lay Member)
ln the matter of Jeremy Denn, Registered Architect
The Respondent: Jeremy Denn
- accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against him in the terms set out below;
- confirms that he has been offered the opportunity to appear before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee to present his case, but does not wish to do so.
The Architects Registration Board (ARB) accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against Jeremy Denn in the terms set out below:
A charge of Unacceptable Professional Conduct has been brought by the ARB against the Respondent in that:
1.1 He failed to provide his client with any or adequate terms of engagement in 2014 and or 2017 prior to undertaking any professional work.
Statement of Agreed Facts
- The Respondent practises as an architect under the style of DENN Architects who were engaged in 2014 in relation to a kitchen extension and 2017 by the same complainant in connection with the drawing of plans to assist in the obtaining of full planning permission for a new build dwelling. The client became dissatisfied with the service and by Complaint Review form dated 23 November 2018 and letter dated 2 December 2018 raised a formal complaint with the ARB.
- The Respondent was required to ensure that prior to undertaking any professional work in 2014 and also 2017 that DENN Architects had entered into a written agreement with the client which adequately covered the matters particularised in Standard 4 of the 2010 and 2017 Codes.
- Whilst the Respondent has indicated that he had a standard letter of engagement he accepts that same failed to deal with all of the matters referred to in Standard 4 of the Code and was not compliant. The ‘standard letter of engagement’ referred to by the Respondent merely provides a proposed fixed fee and scope of work but fails to deal with adequately, or at all, the requirements of Standards 4.4 and 4.6 of the 2010 Code and Standard 4.4 of the 2017 Code summarised below.
I. The contracting parties;
II. who will be responsible for what;
III. any constraints or limitations on the responsibilities of the parties;
IV. the provisions for suspension or termination of the agreement;
V. a statement that the Respondent has adequate and appropriate insurance cover as specified by the ARB; details of a complaints-handling procedure,
VI. details of any special arrangements for resolving disputes (e.g. arbitration);
VII. that the Respondent is registered with the Architects Registration Board and subject to the Code.
- The Respondent accepts that he failed to provide his client with any, or adequate, terms of engagement in 2014 and 2017.
- The Investigations Panel reached a final decision on 19 June 2019 and resolved to refer the case to the Professional Conduct Committee, resulting in the allegation particularised herein.
- The Respondent admits the allegation as set out above.
Statement as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct
- The Respondent admits the allegation particularised above amounts to Unacceptable Professional Conduct because of the seriousness of the breach and a disciplinary order is necessary as set out under Section 1 5 (1) (a) of the Architects Act ‘1997.
- The Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee, with the consent of the parties, and having taken account of its responsibilities to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession, makes the following disciplinary order:
I. A reprimand pursuant to Section 15 (2) (a) of the Architects Act 1997.
- Taking into account the Indicative Sanctions Guidance, a reprimand is the appropriate sanction. It is necessary to mark the conduct of the Respondent as being unacceptable but there is evidence of insight into the failings and a previous good disciplinary history.