DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS

The following is a listing of NZRAB Board decisions where grounds for disciplining a Registered Architect or a former Registered Architect were found, following an investigation under the Registered Architects Act 2005 and Registered Architects Rules 2006. Reports are anonomised, unless the Board made a specific decision to name the architect.

The reference dates below are when each disciplinary hearing occurred, or when the Board considered an Investigating Panel (IP) report, under revised rules that came into effect in 2020. Cost orders are based on a percentage of the costs and expenses of, and incidental to an inquiry of the Board, including Investigating Panel costs.

Complaint 110

Board decision on grounds for discipline: 13 July 2021

The Board resolved that there were grounds for discipling two architects for multiple breaches of Rule 49 of the Registered Architects Rules 2006 and section 25(1)(c) of the Registered Architects Act 2005.

A redacted, partial report of the Investigating Panel reccomendation on grounds for discipline is avaiable here.

Board decision on Penalty, costs and publication: 7 September 2021, 5 October 2021

The Board made the following orders under section 26 of the Registered Architects Act 2005:

  • Censure
  • That the Architects practice be subject to the following conditions:
    • That upon application and before being granted an Annual Certificate of Registration (ACR) both Architects are to undergo a face-to-face competence review. As part of such review the Evaluation Panel is to be provided with a copy of this decision.
    • That 12 months after being granted an ACR, both Architects are to undergo a further face-to-face competence review.  As part of that review, the evaluation panel is to be provided with a copy of this decision and the report of the first face-to-face review.
  • That the Architects are to pay, jointly and severally, 60 per cent of the costs and expenses of, and incidental to, the inquiry by the Board.
  • That a summary of the IP Report and the Board decision be published on the NZRAB website without reference to identifying details.

A redacted summary of the Board's decision is available here.

..........

Complaints 82 and 84

Board decision on grounds for discipline: 17 June 2021

At a disciplinary hearing, the Board found there were grounds for disciplining two Registered Architects under section 25(1)(b) of the Registered Architects Act 2005 for breaches of Rule 49 of the Registered Architects Rules 2006.

Board decision on Penalty, Costs and publication: 17 June 2021, 28 July 2021

The Board made the following orders in regard to penalty, costs and publication:

  • Censure
  • The Architects must each undertake a face-to-face competence review within the next 12 months.
  • The Architects are to pay for the costs of the adjourned hearing, plus a sum equivalent to 50% of the remaining costs and expenses incurred by the Board in investigating the complaints, conducting the hearing, and issuing the decision.
  • The Penalty is to be included on the Register in relation to each individual and the anonymised decision be published on the NZRAB website.

The anonymised Disciplinary Hearing Report can be viewed here.

..........

Board initiated inquiry 111

Board decsion on grounds for discipline: 18 December 2020

The Board accepted an Investigating Panel (IP) recommendation that there were grounds for disciplining Mr Adam Taylor under section 25(1)(b) of the Registered Architects Act 2005 in relation to breaches of rules 47, 55 and 58A of the Registered Architects Rules 2006. 

Board decision on penalty, costs and publication:  23 March 2021, 11 May 2021

  • Section 26 (1) The penalty is censure.
  • Section 26 (4) The costs of and incidental to the inquiry is 100%.
  • Section 26 (5) (b) Public notification will occur, through publication of the IP report, with the names of persons and businesses, other than that of Mr Taylor, redacted from the Investigating Panel report, prior to its publication on the NZRAB website.

The partially redacted IP report on the investigation can be viewed here.

..........

3 November 2020

A Registered Architect was found to have breached Rule 49 of the Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct for Registered Architects, relating to services provided in regard to a new build domestic project.

The architect was:

  • censured
  • required to contribute 50% of the costs (plus GST)
  • required to provide annually, for the next three years, a report to the Board regarding practice with respect to budget and cost estimates, being matters included in Rule 58B of the Registered Architects Rules 2006.

The Disciplinary Hearing Report can be viewed here

..........

11 June 2020

A Registered Architect was found to have breached Rule 49 of the Architect's Code of Ethics and section 25(1)(c) of the Registered Architects Act 2005, relating to services provided in regard to a new build domestic project.

The architect was:

  • censured
  • required to contribute 33% of the costs (plus GST)

The Disciplinary Hearing Report can be viewed here

..........

3 December 2019

A Registered Architect, Michael Farrant 2413, was found to have breached Rule 49 of the Architects’ Code of Ethics in that he failed to perform his professional work with due care and diligence. This related to a residential project which got into difficulties when obligations under a cross lease were neither identified nor met. Mr Farrant was:

  • censured
  • required to undertake a Competence Review forthwith
  • pay costs of $27,219.72 (plus GST)
  • named. 

The Disciplinary Hearing Report can be viewed here.

..........

29 March 2017

A Registered Architect was found to have breached Rule 49 of the Architects’ Code of Ethics in that he failed to perform his professional work with due care and diligence. This related to a residential project where the architect/his subordinate made a number of technical mistakes.

No penality was imposed, but the architect was required to pay costs of $12,410.80 (GST included).

The Disciplinary Hearing Report can be viewed here.

..........

29 June 2016

A Registered Architect was found to have breached Rule 49 of the Architects’ Code of Ethics in that he failed to perform his professional work with due care and diligence. This related to a residential project that had to be abandoned when the full cost of the design became apparent. The architect was:

  • censured
  • fined $2,000
  • required to pay costs of $26,841.79 (GST included).

The Disciplinary Hearing Report into the matter can be viewed here.

..........

23 February 2016

A Registered Architect was found to have breached Rule 49 of the Architects’ Code of Ethics in that he failed to perform his professional work with due care and diligence. This related to a residential project in which the architect had agreed to engage a separate consultant to lodge a resource consent application and did not do so, and then technical errors occurred. The architect was:

  • censured
  • required to pay costs of $14,729.36 (GST included).

The Disciplinary Hearing Report into the matter can be viewed here.

..........

25 November 2015

A former Registered Architect, Edward Lee, was found to have breached section 25(1)(d) of the Registered Architects Act 2005 and Rule 46 of the Architects’ Code of Ethics. This related to false information in regard to professional development activities presented to the Board as evidence required for a five-yearly competence review. Mr Lee was:

  • censured
  • fined $2,000
  • required to pay costs of $6,523.38 (GST included)
  • publicly named.

The Disciplinary Hearing Report into the matter can be viewed here.

..........

2 January 2015
A Registered Architect was found to have breached Rule 49 of the Architects’ Code of Ethics in that she failed to perform her professional work with due care and diligence. This related to errors in calculating a height-in-relation-to-boundary encroachment and not having personal indemnity insurance despite having told the client that she did. The architect was:

  • censured
  • required to remain in employment, under the direct supervision of a registered architect, for a period of two years continuous employment
  • undertake her next competence review as a face to face interview
  • required to pay costs of $13,203.31 (GST included).

The Disciplinary Committee Report into the matter can be viewed here.

..........

25 January 2013
A Registered Architect was found to have breached Rule 50 of the Architects’ Code of Ethics in that he provided architectural services without agreed terms of appointment. The architect was:

  • censured
  • required to submit for review his current agreements for service within two months and then annually all agreements for service for all work entered into for two years, supported by statutory declarations
  • required to pay costs of $26,561.38 (GST included).

The Disciplinary Committee Report into the matter can be viewed here.