Skip main navigation and go to content

Professional Conduct Committee Decisions

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER OF

MRS EILEEN BRYZE (037753H)

held on

11 October 2011

at
Clifford’s Inn Conference Centre
Fetter Lane London
EC4A 1LD

Present:

Mrs Alexandra Marks (Chair)
Mr Stephen Neale (PCC Lay Member)
Mr Donal Hutchinson (PCC Architect Member)

Ms Nicola Hill (Clerk to the PCC)

Mrs Bryze did not attend and was not represented.

  1. The Architects Registration Board (“the Board”) was represented by Mr Iain Miller, Solicitor.
  2. Eileen Margaret BRYZE (“Mrs Bryze”) did not attend nor was she represented.
  3. Mrs Bryze faced allegations that she was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct pursuant to Section 14(1)(a) of the Architects Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) in that:-
    1. she did not act with integrity and avoid any action or situation inconsistent with her professional obligations, contrary of Standard 1 of the Architects Code of Conduct 2002 (“the 2002 Code”);
    2. she did not ensure that the work of her practice insofar as it relates to architecture was under her control and management and inform the Complainants of her identity, contrary to Standard 3.4 of the 2002 Code;
    3. she failed to carry out professional work without undue delay, contrary to  Standard 11.4 of the 2002 Code;
    4. she failed to deal with disputes or complaints about her conduct appropriately, contrary to Standard 10 of the Architects Code of Conduct 2010 (“the 2010 Code”); 
    5. she failed to cooperate fully and promptly with the Board in its investigation, contrary to  Standard 11 of the 2010 Code.
  4. The Panel noted that no allegation of dishonesty was made against Mrs Bryze.
  5. A preliminary application was made by the Board’s Solicitor to proceed in the absence of Mrs Bryze. The Panel first considered carefully whether Mrs Bryze had been properly served with notice of the hearing in accordance with the requirements of the 1997 Act and the Board’s Professional Conduct Committee Rules (in force with effect from 1 April 2011) (“the Rules”). The Board’s Solicitor informed the Panel that this was the second occasion on which this case had been listed, the first hearing listed in May 2011 having been adjourned due to concerns over proper service of notice on Mrs Bryze. The Board’s Solicitor then presented evidence that written notice of the date, place and time of this hearing had been served on Mrs Bryze both by post and in person. On the basis of that evidence, the Panel was satisfied that notice of this hearing had been properly served.
  6. The Panel went on to consider whether, in the circumstances and given the background to this case, it was appropriate for the proceedings to continue in Mrs Bryze’s absence. Having applied Rule 11 of the Rules and the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in R v Jones (Anthony William) [2003] 1 AC 1, the Panel was satisfied that Mrs Bryze had been given an adequate opportunity to appear before the Panel to argue her case. The Panel also noted that Rule 11(d) of the Rules provided an additional safeguard, namely that an absent respondent may apply for a rehearing in certain circumstances. The Panel noted that Mrs Bryze had provided no reason for her non-attendance, nor indeed had communicated with the Board at any time during the investigation into the matters alleged against her. The Panel therefore concluded that it would be in the interests of justice, and the public interest, without resulting in unfairness to Mrs Bryze, for the hearing to proceed.
  7. As Mrs Bryze was neither present, nor represented, nor had she made any admissions, she was regarded by the Panel as denying all the above particulars, and denying that she was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.
  8. In reaching its decision, the Panel gave careful consideration to all the papers and evidence presented by the Board’s Solicitor. The Board’s Solicitor did not call any witnesses.
  9. The Panel noted that Mrs Bryze had failed to communicate with the Board at any time since the start of its investigation. She was also absent from the hearing in person or through any representative. There was thus no written or oral evidence available to the Panel on behalf of Mrs Bryze.
  10. The allegations arose out of two matters:
    1. In respect of the particulars at paragraphs 3(a) to 3(d) above, Mr & Mrs Matthews (“the Complainants”) had appointed Fylde Architects & Surveyors of Greenlands Farm, Ribby Road, Preston PR4 2PA in around July 2009 to prepare and submit an application for building regulation approval for a single storey extension to their home at 253 Heyhouses Lane in Lytham St Annes; and
    2. In respect of the particulars at paragraph 3(e) above, the Board had corresponded with Mrs Bryze on numerous dates since instigation of its investigation in January 2010.
  11. Dealing with each the particulars:
    1. taking those in paragraph 3(b) first -  the failure to ensure that the work of her practice insofar as it related to architecture was under her control and management - on the basis of the evidence presented to the Panel, namely that the Complainants’ job was being conducted by Mr Bernard Bryze, who unbeknownst to the Complainants at the time they instructed him, is not registered as an architect but conducts his practice with Mrs Bryze under the style of Fylde Architects & Surveyors, the Panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the practice was held out as one under the control and management of a registered architect but that the Complainants had not been informed of Mrs Bryze’s identity (as the registered architect at the practice) as required by Standard 3.4 of the 2002 Code and thus the particulars were proven.
    2. as regards the particulars in paragraph 3(a) - the failure to act with integrity and avoid situations inconsistent with professional obligations - and paragraph 3(c) - the failure to carry out professional work without undue delay - the Panel concluded on the basis of the evidence presented and on the balance of probabilities that Mrs Bryze’s essential failing was to control and manage the work of Mr Bryze an unregistered person but found no lack of integrity nor failure to carry out professional work on the part of Mrs Bryze.
    3. as regards the particulars in paragraph 3(d) - failure to deal with disputes or complaints appropriately - on the basis of the evidence presented to the Panel that Mrs Bryze had not responded to a written request from the Board on 14 January 2010 to deal directly with the Complainants’ complaint, the Panel found on the balance of probabilities the particulars proven.
    4. finally, as regards the particulars in paragraph 3(e) - failure to cooperate fully and promptly with the Board in its investigation - on the basis of the evidence that the Board had written to Mrs Bryze at her registered address on at least six separate occasions over approximately a ten month period but not once had Mrs Bryze responded even to acknowledge receipt of such correspondence, the Panel found on the balance of probabilities the particulars proven.
  12. The Panel further concluded on the balance of probabilities that, on the basis of the facts above which the Panel found proven in relation to particulars 3(b), 3 (d) and 3(e), Mrs Bryze’s conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct (defined in the 2002 Code as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered person).
  13. In the absence of Mrs Bryze or her representative, and her failure to communicate with the Board at any time during its investigation of this matter, the Panel heard no submissions or mitigation on her behalf with regard to sanction. However, the Panel took account of the Board’s Solicitor’s confirmation that Mrs Bryze had no previous disciplinary history. The Panel also took account of the fact that no dishonesty was alleged against Mrs Bryze.
  14. The Panel first considered whether no sanction should be imposed but concluded that, in view of its finding of unacceptable professional conduct for breaches of the 2002 and 2010 Code, it would be inappropriate for Mrs Bryze’s conduct not to be marked by imposition of a sanction. The Panel then considered in ascending order of seriousness the sanctions available to it under Section 15(2) of the 1997 Act. It concluded that a reprimand was insufficient given the seriousness of the conduct, the evidence of failure to engage with the Complainants, the local authority and the Board together with the absence of any evidence of remorse, regret, insight into professional failings or corrective steps being taken. The Panel therefore concluded that the appropriate sanction was a penalty order in the sum of £500 to be paid within 28 days.

Back