ARBV – Architects Registration Board of Victoria

Disciplinary Information

Date of Tribunal
Determination
Registration Details Description
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 guilty of unprofessional conduct 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 $658.85 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.

1533254400 03/08/2018 Name: Emma Young
Type: Architect
Registrant: 15569

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 clients about likely construction costs based on the clients’ design requirements and the architect’s ability to provide a design which would enable the building to be built within the clients’ budget.

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 inform themself about likely construction costs of their design to be able to adequately advise the clients regarding their construction budget.

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay $17,000 costs (shared with another architect).

1533254400 03/08/2018 Name: Peter Ho
Type: Architect
Registrant: 15542

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 clients about likely construction costs based on the clients’ design requirements and the architect’s ability to provide a design which would enable the building to be built within the clients’ budget.

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 inform themself about likely construction costs of their design to be able to adequately advise the clients regarding their construction budget.

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay $17,000 costs (shared with another architect).

1532217600 22/07/2018 Name: Craig Chester
Type: Architect
Registrant: 14180

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 act in the interests of their client and not favour their own interest over that of their client (in relation to the use of drawings), contrary to regulation 7 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they had a conflict of interest with a client and failed to give the client written notice of that conflict of interest, contrary to regulation 8(1) of the Architects Regulations 2004.

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 ensure that a representation made in an application to amend a planning permit was accurate and current, contrary to regulation 12 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

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 a company of which the architect was a director carried out work beyond the initial engagement and only provided written notice of the change in scope in a revised fee proposal afterwards.

The architect was reprimanded, ordered to pay a total of $5,500 in penalties, and ordered to pay $12,592.18 costs.

1527206400 25/05/2018 Name: Christopher McSteen
Type: Architect
Registrant: 14106

On review, VCAT, as varied by the Victorian Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct, in that they failed to provide their client with written notification of a change in the terms of their engagement, in breach of regulation 14 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

On review, VCAT, as varied by the Victorian Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct, in that they failed to adequately inform or consult with their client regarding the reasons and/or basis for the increase in the estimated costs of building work, in breach of regulation 6 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

On review, VCAT, as varied by the Victorian Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct, in that they refused to provide drawings in a form in which they could be digitally modified to the client following the ending of the engagement, in breach of regulation 6 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

The architect was reprimanded, ordered to pay a total of $3,500 in penalties, and ordered to pay costs.

1512345600 04/12/2017 Name: Peter Wright
Type: Architect
Registrant: 14388

Pursuant to sections 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to endeavour to maintain the standards and integrity of the profession by being involved in carrying out building works regarding widening a balcony (for a domestic dwelling) without a planning permit or building permit, in breach of clause 18 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to sections 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to act with integrity, fairness, and impartiality in administering a building contract by being involved in carrying out building works (for a domestic dwelling) to a height contrary to the planning permit, in breach of clause 18 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay $16,000 costs.

1506384000 26/09/2017 Name: Feras Raffoul
Type: Architect
Registrant: 17054

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they acted as architect and developer without providing written notice of the scope of each of those roles to their clients, in breach of regulation 8 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they acted as architect and developer without obtaining written consent to act as such from their clients, in breach of regulation 9 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay costs.

1473897600 15/09/2016 Name: William Corner
Type: Architect Non Practising
Registrant: 17530

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 set out the terms and conditions of engagement and provide a copy to the owner before agreeing to provide architectural services, in breach of regulation 14 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they requested and received payment for aspects of work when the work had not been completed, in breach of regulation 6 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

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 respond to the owners and keep them informed about the progress of the provision of services in a timely manner.

The architect was cautioned.

1536796800 13/09/2018 Name: Surjeet Mudher
Type: Architect
Registrant: 12688

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that the architect provided architectural services in the absence of a written agreement with the client, in breach of clause 4 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay a $2,000 penalty.

The Architects Tribunal reprimanded the architect, imposed a fine of $2,000, and ordered the architect to provide the ARBV copies of all clause 4 written agreements for a twelve month period.

1470700800 09/08/2016 Name: Surjeet Mudher
Type: Architect
Registrant: 12688

Pursuant to sections 32(c) and 32(d) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to comply with section 6 of the Act by representing a company not approved by the ARBV to be an architect.

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 ensure that representations made in connection with the supply of architectural services were accurate and current, in breach of regulation 12 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

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 ensure all written communications to clients from an ARBV approved company disclosed the names of all directors of the company who were architects.

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 produce a written description of the terms and conditions of the engagement and provide a copy of that document to the clients, in breach of regulation 14 of the Architects Regulations 2004.

The architect was cautioned and reprimanded, ordered to pay a $5,000 penalty, and ordered to pay $6,300.80 costs.

1457308800 07/03/2016 Name: Peter Barton
Type: Architect
Registrant: 13872

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless or incompetent in their practice with respect to contract administration services relating to communication with clients about alleged defects.

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay $5,000 costs.