ARBV – Architects Registration Board of Victoria

Disciplinary Information

Date of Tribunal
Determination
Registration Details Description
1697328000 15/10/2023 Name: Lex Carter
Type: Architect
Registrant: 12828

Pursuant to 32(b) of the Architects Act 1991 (Act), the Architects Tribunal found that the architect's professional standards were demonstrably lower than the standards which a competent architect should meet, in that he failed to comply with the payment terms of a contract.

Pursuant to 32(c) of the Act, the Architects Tribunal found that the Architect engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he contravened clause 17 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct (Code), by failing to endeavour to engender confidence in and respect for the profession of architecture and by failing to comply with the payment terms of the contract.

Pursuant to 32(c) of the Act, the Architects Tribunal found that the architect engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he contravened clause 18 of the Code, by failing to endeavour to maintain the standards and integrity of the profession of architecture, by failing to comply with the payment terms of the contract.

Pursuant to 32(c) of the Act, the Architects Tribunal found that the architect engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he contravened clause 4 of the Code, by providing architectural services to the client having failed to enter into a written agreement with the client which included the prescribed requirements.

Pursuant to 32(c) of the Act, the Architects Tribunal found that the architect engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he contravened clause 9 of the Code by entering into an agreement with the client under clause 4 of the Code but failing to keep documents in accordance with clause 9 of the Code.

The Tribunal ordered that the architect be cautioned and that he pay the Tribunal’s costs in the sum of $4,000.

1694044800 07/09/2023 Name: Edward Sanderson
Type: Architect
Registrant: 12995

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991 and Regulation 16 of the Architects Regulations 2004 (2004 Regulations), the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of contravening Regulation 14 of 2004 Regulations for failing to provide the description, terms and conditions of their engagement to provide architectural services as soon as practicable to the client.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991 and Regulation 9 of the Architects Regulations 2015 (2015 Regulations), the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of contravening Clause 7(a) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct (Code) contained in Schedule 1 of the 2015 Regulations.

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of two allegations of being careless in their practice in that they failed to apply for an extension of the expiry period in respect of the town planning permit (TPP) and facilitated the client entering a building contract in circumstances when the TPP had expired and not been extended.

The Tribunal ordered that the Architect’s registration be cancelled.

1658793600 26/07/2022 Name: Peter Winkler
Type: Architect
Registrant: 16287

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of two allegations of being careless and incompetent in their practice in that they failed to identify that a glass balustrade along an internal balcony that did not comply with the requirements of the National Construction Code (NCC) and that they permitted or directed a variation to building work without the consent of the owners of the dwelling.

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay the Boards costs of $46,595.80.

1655942400 23/06/2022 Name: Fransiskus Letten
Type: Architect
Registrant: 17905

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of two allegations of unprofessional conduct in that they provided architectural services without entering into written agreements for the provision of architectural services.

Pursuant to section 32(d) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of four allegations that they breached or failed to comply with provisions of the Architects Act in that they did not comply with section 8B of the Act and carried out work as an architect without being covered by the required insurance.

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay the Boards costs of $7,000. The architect was also order to attend 30 hours of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) within 12 months of the orders.

1638835200 07/12/2021 Name: Natalina Patti
Type: Architect
Registrant: 18532

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of two allegations of unprofessional conduct in that they provided a false and/or misleading representation to the Architects Registration Board of Victoria to the effect that they were employed by an approved architectural company and covered under its policy of professional indemnity insurance.

The architect was was fined $2,500 for each of the proven allegations. The architect was suspended from professional practice for four months and was required to pay the Board's costs of $7,000.

1640131200 22/12/2021 Name: David Palmer
Type: Architect
Registrant: 16718

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of one allegation of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to perform their work as an architect in a competent manner and to a professional standard by approving the use of a wall cladding product in circumstances where that wall cladding product did not comply with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay a portion of the Boards costs, which was fixed in the sum of $30,000.

1594771200 15/07/2020 Name: Emlyn Olaver
Type: Architect
Registrant: 18640

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to comply with clause 18 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct in that they provided misleading information to the Architects Registration Board of Victoria (ARBV).

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to comply with clause 18 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct in that they provided incorrect information to the Architects Registration Board of Victoria (ARBV).

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay $3,224 costs.

1605052800 11/11/2020 Name: Megan Hamer
Type: Architect
Registrant: 13707

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless in their practice in that they designed and administered the construction of a building structure in contravention of an applicable restrictive covenant.

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay $7000 costs.

1589414400 14/05/2020 Name: Nelson Lee
Type: Architect
Registrant: 16685

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless in their practice in that they agreed to commence providing architectural services (for a three-townhouse development) with no real belief that the project could be achieved within the client’s budget.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they entered into a written agreement with the client (for the town planning stage of a three-townhouse development) that did not include a reasonable estimate of disbursements, as required by clause 4(2)(f) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they entered into a written agreement with the client (for the building permit and construction stage of a three-townhouse development) that did not include a reasonable estimate of disbursements, as required by clause 4(2)(f) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was cautioned, ordered to undertake further education for the purposes of professional development, and ordered to pay a $500 penalty and $1,224 costs.

1586131200 06/04/2020 Name: Sandra Nervegna
Type: Architect
Registrant: 19444

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to ensure they entered a written agreement with the client (for the provision of architectural services for design and construction of a residence) that included all items required by clause 4(2) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they engaged in conduct that did not endeavour to engender confidence in and respect for the profession, contrary to clause 17 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was cautioned, ordered to $5,000 costs, and ordered to undertake further education for the purposes of professional development.

1577059200 23/12/2019 Name: Derek Farrington
Type: Architect
Registrant: 12956

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless or incompetent in their practice in that they failed to adequately inform their client about the progress of the planning permit application (regarding a residential extension project).

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless or incompetent in their practice in that they did not act in a timely manner and adequately communicate with the client (regarding a residential extension project).

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless or incompetent in their practice in that they failed to adequately communicate with their client (regarding part of a residential extension project).

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay $657.85 costs.

1576713600 19/12/2019 Name: Geoffrey Ockleshaw
Type: Architect
Registrant: 12607

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they provided architectural services (for a residential extension) without having entered a written agreement with the client, in breach of clause 4(1) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay $1,118 costs.

1571875200 24/10/2019 Name: John Henry
Type: Architect
Registrant: 13094

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they provided architectural services (for a caretaker’s residence project) without having entered a written agreement with the client, in breach of clause 4(1) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay half of the Tribunal’s costs.