Skip main navigation and go to content

Professional Conduct Committee Decisions

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER OF

FRANCES MORROW (049167E)

on

5 April 2011

Held at:
Cliffords Inn Conference Centre
Fetter Lane, London
EC4A 1LD

Present:

Chair: Ms Alexandra Marks
PCC Member: Mr Stephen Neale
PCC Member: Mr Donal Hutchinson

Clerk to the Committee: Ms Nicola Hill

Mr John Williams of Bankside Law appeared on behalf of the Board
Ms Morrow attended in person


DECISION

  1. The Architects Registration Board (“the Board”) was represented by Mr John Williams of Bankside Law.
  2. Frances Maria Morrow (“Ms Morrow”) attended and was unrepresented.

  3. Ms Morrow faced allegations that she was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, individually or cumulatively, pursuant to Sections 14(1)(a) and 14 (3) of the Architects Act 1997 in that:-

    she failed, in accordance with Standard 4.2 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2002 (the Code), to perform her work with due skill, care and diligence

    in that, as regards the development at Paddlebrook, Ditchford-on-Fosse, Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire (“the property”) where a number of barns were converted to luxury residences:

    1. Ms Morrow failed adequately to check that the correct, specified Klargester BioDisc BE model waste disposal unit was installed for the use of the property; 
    2. she failed adequately to check that the clean water drainage from the property drained to soakaways as specified in her drawings rather than approximately 30% of it being drained to the Klargester BioDisc waste disposal unit contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions and her specifications;
    3. she failed adequately to check that the roof lights at the property conformed to Fire Escape and Building Regulations in particular in relation to roof lights with no background ventilation and bedroom roof lights which do not comply with fire escape regulations.
  4. No preliminary applications were made on the day.
  5. Ms Morrow admitted the particulars at (a) and (b) above but denied the particulars at (c) above and denied that the particulars amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence.
  6. In reaching its decision, the Panel gave careful consideration to the papers, evidence and a witness (Mr Raymond Carr, one of the complainants, who gave evidence on oath) respectively presented and called by the Board’s solicitor and the submissions made by him.
  7. The Panel also gave careful consideration to the papers, evidence and submissions respectively presented and made by Ms Morrow.
  8. The allegations arose out of Ms Morrow’s engagement by Northgate Developments Ltd./D H Galt Property to work on the development of the property.
  9. Ms Morrow gave various explanations and put forward defences as set out below.

  10. Dealing with the disputed particulars and allegations in turn:

    11. As regards the particulars relating to compliance of the roof lights with fire regulations, on the basis of the evidence presented to the Panel - namely the statement and oral evidence of Mr Carr (which was not disputed); the report prepared by John Callow MRICS PGDip (Chartered Building Surveyor) dated 30 November 2005 (which was not disputed); Ms Morrow’s admission that during a site inspection she became aware that the roof lights were not compliant with Fire Regulations; that she had accordingly instructed the contractor to remedy the breach by construction of fixed steps; that on her discovery (prior to issue of her own Certificate) that a Building Regulations completion certificate had been issued notwithstanding the absence of such steps, she had sought and obtained verbal assurance by telephone from Building Control that fixed steps could be dispensed with if furniture were instead placed beneath the roof light, she had accepted such verbal assurance without ensuring it was confirmed in writing and in the knowledge that such assurance did not conform to Building Regulation requirements – the Panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Morrow should have exercised her own professional judgment and skill, rather than rely on a verbal assurance from Building Control, before issuing a Certificate stating that the property complied with Building Regulation requirements.

    As regards the particulars relating to compliance of the roof lights with building regulations for background ventilation, on the basis of the evidence presented to the Panel - namely the statement and oral evidence of Mr Carr (which was not disputed); the report prepared by John Callow MRICS PGDip (Chartered Building Surveyor) dated 30 November 2005 (which was not disputed); Ms Morrow’s admission that partial opening of the roof lights for background ventilation resulted in practical problems with rain ingress, and that alternative solutions for providing background ventilation were unacceptable to the occupiers (and that rejection by them of such solutions was not unreasonable) - the Panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Morrow should have exercised professional judgment and skill in identifying that the roof lights failed to conform to Building Regulation requirements.

    The Panel therefore found, on the balance of probabilities, the particulars in (c) above proven.

    As regards the allegations of unacceptable professional conduct (defined in the Code as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered person) and/or serious professional incompetence (defined in the Code as service which falls short of the standard required of a registered person), on the basis of the particulars at (a) and (b) which were admitted and the particulars at (c) which were proven and on the basis of the evidence presented to the Panel – namely Ms Morrow’s evidence that she was aware that the Certificate she signed was going to be relied on by purchasers of the property; that although she believed she had acted professionally at the time, she had made an error of judgment in placing trust in the team (comprising the developer and contractor/joint developer) as a result of their collaborative and respectful relationship; and that, at the time, she had believed that the work carried out on site complied with Building Regulation requirements – the Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that it was the professional responsibility of Ms Morrow prior to issue of her Certificate to verify, and satisfy herself, by appropriate site visits and inspections rather than assurances by others that the works conformed with architectural drawings, specifications and building regulations. The Panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Morrow’s conduct (in relying on the assurances of others rather than verifying or confirming the position for herself) and Ms Morrow’s service (in issuing a Professional Consultant’s Certificate to Mr and Mrs Carr on 6 October 2004 on which she knew they would rely on the basis of her professional competence) fell short of the standards of conduct and service required of a registered person in that she had failed, in accordance with Standard 4.2 of the Code to perform her work with due skill, care and diligence and thus she was guilty of both unacceptable professional conduct and serious professional incompetence.

  11. The Panel heard submissions and mitigation with regard to sanction - and in particular took account of Ms Morrow’s explanation of the circumstances of the offences; her admission that, with hindsight although she had not realised at the time, the amount of inspection and care she had employed had been inadequate; that she had been in practice for 28 years now (22 years at the time) without any claim being made against her and that, while she continues to learn, her behaviour was in accordance with her experience at the time; and that she takes her profession seriously - the Panel concluded that the conduct and incompetence of which it had found her guilty seriously affected the residents of the property and potentially adversely affected confidence of the public in the profession; that although Ms Morrow showed insight into her failings from a professional perspective, she had made little direct expression of regret as regards the suffering experienced by the complainants; although some corrective steps had been taken, certain of the defects complained of still subsist; the Panel took account of the Board’s Solicitor’s confirmation that Ms Morrow had no previous disciplinary history; and the Panel noted that Ms Morrow had not benefited financially from the offences; that she had learnt professionally from the experience, and that she was unlikely to repeat the behaviour.

    The Panel concluded that the offences were too serious to warrant a reprimand and that the appropriate sanction was a penalty order of £1,500 in respect of its finding of unacceptable professional conduct and £1,500 in respect of its finding of serious professional incompetence, totalling £3,000 in all. The Panel ordered such total sum to be paid within 28 days of today’s date.

Back