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. 

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 C129 — Penalty decision, 9 July 2024

The architect involved in complaint case C129 received a disciplinary penalty following the Board's inquiry into the complaint. The Board found that the architect had:

  • Failed to meet the ethical standard for skill, care, and diligence (Rule 49) and competence (Rule 58(c)).
  • Practised in a negligent or incompetent manner.

Orders made by the Board:

  • The architect has been censured.
  • The architect must undergo a face-to-face continuing registration competence review with two senior assessors within 12 months. The review will focus on supervision, planning, and communication processes, with assessors provided with the Board's decision and the Investigating Panel’s report.
  • The architect is required to pay 100% of the costs associated with the complaint investigation.

A full summary of the Board's decision and penalty is available here.

............

Complaint C130 — Penalty decision, 8 February 2024

The architect involved in complaint case C130 received a disciplinary penalty following the Board's inquiry into the complaint. The Board found that the architect had:

  • Failed to meet the ethical standard for skill, care, and diligence (Rule 49); and/or
  • Practised in a negligent or incompetent manner.

The architect has been:

  • Censured
  • Fined $1,500
  • Required to pay 100% of the costs of the complaint investigation.

For further information on the Board's decision and the penalty, a summary is available here.

...........

Complaint C126— Penalty decision, 8 February 2024

The former architect involved in complaint case C126 received a disciplinary penalty following the Board's inquiry into the complaint. The Board found the architect had:

  • Failed to meet the ethical standards for honesty and fairness (Rule 47) and client communication (Rule 58B); and
  • Practised in a negligent or incompetent manner.

The former architect has been:

  • Censured
  • Required to pay 100% of the costs of the complaint investigation.

For further information on the Board's decision and the penalty, a summary is available here.

........

Complaint C125

Board decision on grounds for discipline: 15 June 2023

The Board resolved there were grounds for disciplining an architect for a breach of Rule 58A (Terms of appointment) of the Code of minimum standards of ethical conduct for registered architects as contained in the Registered Architects Rules 2006.

Penalty decision: 14 September 2023
The Board made the following orders under section 26 of the Registered Architects Act 2005:

  • Censure
  • 15% of the costs of the complaint investigation to be paid by the architect
  • No public notification of the complaint investigation and disciplinary decisions, other than the inclusion of the penalty on the Register in relation to the architect for three years.

...........

Complaint C118

Board decision on grounds for discipline

On 4 October 2022, the Board decided that there were grounds for disciplining Neville Saunders under section 25 of the Registered Architects Act 2005 (the Act), on the basis he had—

  • Breached Rule 46 of the code of ethics (failure to uphold the law having been convicted of criminal offence when registered as an architect); and
  • Been convicted of offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 6 months or more; and the commission of those offences reflected adversely on his fitness to carry out the work of a registered architect.

Board decision on penalty, costs, and publication

On 15 June 2023, the Board made the following orders under section 26 of the Act—

1. The architect is to be censured in relation to his conduct - section 26(1)(c) of the Registered Architects Act 2005 (the Act).
2. The architect is to pay 80% of the costs of and incidental to the Board’s investigation of the complaint - section 26(4) of the Act.
3. A summary of the disciplinary action taken against the architect (name disclosed) and consequent penalty is to be published on the NZRAB website.

A summary of the Board’s decision is available here.

..........

Complaint 112

Board decision on grounds for discipline: 29 June 2021

The Board resolved that there were grounds for disciplining an architect for breaches of Rules 49 and 50 of the Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct for Registered Architects contained in the Registered Architects Rules 2006.

A redacted report of the Board's decision on grounds for discipline is available here.

Board decision on Penalty, costs and publication: 16 August 2021, implemented 4 July 2022

The Board made the following penalty, cost and publication orders under section 26 of the Registered Architects Act 2005:

  • Censure.
  • Fine of $1500.00.
  • That the architect pay 100 per cent of the costs and expenses of, and incidental to, the inquiry by the Board.
  • That the decision of the Board be published (without reference to name or location) on the NZRAB website.

..........

Complaint 110

Board decision on grounds for discipline: 13 July 2021

The Board resolved that there were grounds for disciplining 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 available 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 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. The architect 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.