What this means
Start with the exact decision in front of you.
ARB discipline is confined to unacceptable professional conduct and serious professional incompetence under the Architects Act. A departure from good practice or a client disagreement does not automatically meet either serious threshold; the allegation must be analysed against the evidence and applicable Code.
Immediate priorities
Organise the position before responding.
Identify whether conduct, competence or both are alleged
Map each fact to the Code in force when it occurred
Separate isolated service failure from evidence of serious professional default
Detailed guidance
The procedure, evidence and possible route from here.
01
Distinguish conduct from competence
Unacceptable professional conduct concerns serious professional behaviour, while serious professional incompetence concerns a serious failure in the knowledge, skill or judgment expected of an architect. The same project facts may generate one or both allegations, but the labels are not interchangeable. Identify whether ARB criticises honesty, communication, conflicts, insurance, management, technical performance or a combination, then map each criticism to the statutory category advanced.
A mistake, breach of contract or departure from best practice does not by itself establish either disciplinary offence. The Investigations Panel considers whether the evidenced failing is sufficiently serious and whether a realistic prospect of a PCC finding exists. Examine scale, duration, consequences, repetition and the architect's responsibility. A technical defect caused outside the architect's scope requires different analysis from a repeated failure to meet a clear professional duty.
- Label each allegation as conduct, competence or both
- Identify the professional duty and scope
- Analyse why the alleged failing is or is not serious
02
Use the Code that governed the events
The Architects Code 2025 replaced the earlier Code, but ARB states that ongoing complaints are typically considered under the Code in force when the relevant events occurred. Build a dated schedule connecting conduct to the applicable provision. Later guidance may help explain contemporary professional expectations, yet it should not be used silently as if it imposed a retrospective requirement on an earlier project.
The Code is evidence of expected professional standards, but a breach is not automatically a statutory finding of UPC or SPI. Explain the surrounding professional judgment, competing duties and information available at the time. Where the Code gives examples of compliant behaviour, identify what was done in substance even if documentation or terminology differed. Where there was a departure, address its seriousness and effect rather than arguing that every Code statement is optional.
- Date each alleged act or omission
- Apply the Code then in force
- Separate Code non-compliance from the statutory threshold
03
Address seriousness with evidence
For competence allegations, provide the complete technical context: brief, design stage, consultant roles, site information, warnings, decisions and later changes. Independent architectural opinion may be useful where the issue falls outside ordinary understanding, but its assumptions must match the complete project record. Evidence of a reasonable range of professional approaches can be relevant without implying that all possible outcomes are acceptable.
For conduct allegations, address state of knowledge, intention, communication and effect. Remediation may show current professional reliability, but it does not erase a historic fact. Use targeted evidence such as revised engagement procedures, documented peer review, complaint-handling changes or supervised technical work. Keep any factual denial separate from insight offered on an alternative basis so the response does not appear internally inconsistent.
- Reconstruct the decision with contemporary inputs
- Test expert assumptions against the file
- Present alternative-basis remediation clearly
Key questions
Keep the analysis tied to this stage.
Whether the proved facts are sufficiently serious
Whether they concern conduct, competence or both
Whether public protection and confidence require formal proceedings
Advice is provided only by the regulated firm that accepts a matter.
Common questions
Clarifying the route without assuming the outcome.
Is every breach of the Architects Code disciplinary misconduct?
No. ARB may take a Code failure into account, but UPC and SPI require the statutory level of seriousness and the evidence must support the alleged category.
Can one allegation be both UPC and SPI?
The same facts can potentially support both, but each statutory allegation should be defined and analysed separately.
Connected guidance
Continue through the topic map.
Use the hub for the full sequence or choose the connected route that matches the notice.
Official sources
Check the material for this question.
Sources checked 19 September 2026. Rules change, so compare the current notice and linked official material and tell the operator if a citation or summary needs correction.