Beware the existence of Illegal Architect and Illegal Practice

Commentary and Reseach by Ar Ridha Razak

The emergence of a persons or companies masquerading as design consultants or companies

providing Architectural Consultancy Service is mushrooming in Malaysia. These companies are
not licensed with the Board of Architects (LAM) nor they are regulated by any sets of code of
conducts and do not have liability under the Malaysian law. They are a risk to public interest as
well as the Architectural profession.

To date, there is no definition of what an illegal Architect or Practice is under the Architect Act
1967. However, it is understood that an illegal architect in Malaysia is define as other person
than a license Architect who provide and perform full or part of Architectural Consultancy
Services using a company that is not registered with the Board of Architects Malaysia
(LAM). This company is generally known as 'illegal practice'. Under the Architect Act Section 7A
(1) and the Scale of Minimum Fee (SoMF) 2010, only an Architectural Consultancy Practice
(ACP) is empowered by the Act to offer Architectural Consultancy Service which consist of Basic,
Supplementary or Additional Service. Diagram 1 illustrates the link between Architectural
Consultancy Practice with Registra of Company (ROC) incorporated company.

Diagram 1
Currently, there are 2 categories of illegal Architect or practice identified in the market. The
first category is an Illegal Architect conducting illegal practice. They are define as any person
that includes part 1 & 2 Graduate Architect, Interior designer or graduate interior designer,
Design and build Contractor, foreigner whom impersonate as an Architect and uses
Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) vehicle or other modes than ACP to provide Architectural
consultancy services to public. This can be referred to diagram 2 and diagram 3 where a client
or contractor appoints an illegal architect and practice to provide the Architectural consultancy
services.

Diagram 2 Diagram 3

Diagram 2: Client appoints an Illegal Architect/ Practice Diagram 3: Client appoints a design and built contractor

The Second category is Architect that conducts illegal practice in lieu of their ACP. This can be
defined as any Architect whom provides Architectural Consultancy Service using a company
that is not registered with LAM. For example, an Architect using a company which is a non ACP
or Interior Design company to provide full or part of Architectural Consultancy Service. In this
case the Architect may not be entitled for his rights under Architect Act Section 7A 1(b). This
can be referred to diagram 4 and 5 examples where Architects uses an ROC incorporated
company which is not registered with LAM to provide Architectural Consultancy Service. There
are a few reasons as to why Architect results to this arrangement such as to allow flexibility of
their business set up to partner with other persons, able to allow financial investors to
contribute for capital injection to their business and other unknown personal reasons.

Diagram 4 Diagram 5
Diagram 4 & 5: Architect uses a Non ACP to provide Architectural Consultancy Services

These illegal architects or practices are contravening various sections of Architect Act 1967 such
as section 33 (e & h) or 34(1) and subject themselves to punitive or penal sentences. In fact,
they can be charge under Penal Code for fraud and may well be subjected to the Malaysian
Immigration Act. In UK, the Architect Registration Board (ARB) prosecutes any person that
misuses the term Architect1. It is then widely publicized in the printed media and ARB
website2. Since 1998, over 80 cases have been prosecuted in UK relating to impersonation &
misrepresentation by a person and the misuse of social media. Among notable cases are,
Malcolm Capstick of Smart Design Group was fined 7,500 for falsely claiming to be an architect
in the year 2012. On February 2nd 2015, Middlesex-based Market Design & Build Contractor was
ordered to pay in a record breaking more than 10,000 in fines and costs after being found
guilty of misusing the title architect. 3

It is quite often that a layman appoints an illegal practice that solicits an Architect to sign for
their project. This is not acceptable as they are violating the Architect Act for selling signatures
which if found guilty ,may be subjected to sec 15A(e). In the United States of America, some of
the states such as New York, Illinois, Florida, California, Nevada & Texas take illegal architect or
practice as a serious offense and if found guilty, they may be expose to large penalty or
imprisonment. In New York for instance, an unlicensed person named James Arriaga unlawfully
practiced architecture with a little help from the bogus stamp and seal of an actual licensed
architect. He was found in 2005 to have defrauded more than 150 people over a four-year
period. Arriaga pleaded guilty and He was sentenced to four months of weekends in jail and five
years probation, and was ordered to make reparations to the city in the amount of $10,000. 4

There are many ways to identify the illegal architect or practice today. They can be found
offering service through social media such as website, Facebook, Instagram or seeking recruits
through Job search websites and etc. They can also be identified through name cards that bear
the name of an unregistered company with LAM. Since the majority of public is not well versed
with the Architect Act, they are often misled by these misrepresentations and end up engaging
them.

In the case of Raymond Banham vs Hotel Consolidated 1976, judge Winslow held that a
Registered Engineer must be appointed and due to its absence the contract is illegal ab initio5.
In Malaysia, any Illegal practice is not entitled for any remuneration as only an Architect can
receive remuneration for Architectural Consultancy Practice. This is demonstrated in Sami
Mousawi Utama Sdn Vs Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak Bhd suit where the High Court decision had
concluded that a corporate entity cannot claim fees for Architectural or Engineering services if

1
ARB Website : http://www.arb.org.uk/regulating-use-of-the-title-architect-prosecutions
2
ARB Website http://www.arb.org.uk/Table-of-prosecutions-for-misuse-of-the-title-architect
3
www.architectsjournal.co.uk
4
, Trust Me, I'm an (Unlicensed) Architect ,Amanda Kolson Hurley,
http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/trust-me-im-an-unlicensed-architect_o
5
Case Law Raymond Banham & Anor v Consolidated Hotels Ltd. [1976] 1 MLJ 5 (Singapore)
it is not registered under both Malaysian Acts even if it uses registered professionals to provide
these services6. This can also be referred to case of BEP Akitek (PTE) v Pontiac Land Pte Ltd
(1992) , it was held that an entity that was not registered under the relevant Singapore statute
cannot claim fees for Architectural services even if it engages registered professionals to
perform those services7.

Is The Public At Risk?

There are various effects and repercussion when an illegal architect or practice provides its
service to the public. In the inception stage, public may not be aware that they are engaging an
unlawful person or company to perform the works and thus exposing them to possibilities of
having to deal with persons who have no conduct and liability under the Architect Act and may
be cheated of their monies. Bear in mind that these illegal Architect or Practice may provide
substandard service due to no professional training under the Malaysian Law. In the case of
foreign architect, they may not be familiar with Malaysian Law thus potentially violating various
building standards in their design. As the project progress, they will have to deal with the fraud
person to design and administer their building and may be at risk of getting an unsafe building.
They may also be exposed to half bake services which will lead to unnecessary litigation
process. Finally, public may be deprive of their rights to obtain Certificate of Completion and
Compliance (CCC) and building insurance for their constructed building, thus making them
taking moving in their building illegally and jeopardizing their safety.

Based on the above scenarios, there is a crucial need for the public to be made aware of the
existence of these illegal practices and who to report to should they encounter such
propositions from the unqualified persons. The public needs to be informed about the
functions of the Board of Architects Malaysia (LAM) as the regulating body for the Architectural
profession and is the main medium to report those illegal Architects or practices. The LAM
official website is always made available for public use to check whether an Architect or
Company is registered with LAM8.

In 2015, LAM had established a surveillance and enforcement Committee9 to look into these
matters. Although no serious action has been taken, these is viewed as a baby step towards A
more serious enforcement against these unscrupulous illegal practices through various ways
that has been done by Architect Registration Board in UK, Texas and New York. In conclusion,
for the benefit and safety of the public, let us stop illegal architect and practice by keeping our
eyes and ears open. Take our concerns directly to the Board of Architects Malaysia by
complaining to them for the necessary actions.

6
[2004] 2 MLJ 414, CA as reported by Malaysian Law Journal Sdn. Bhd.
7
Case Law - BEP Akitek (PTE) v Pontiac Land Pte Ltd (1992)I SLR 251
8
Official Malaysia Board of Architect ( LAM) website- http://www.lam.gov.my/ under Registration or Practices
9
Official Malaysia Board of Architect ( LAM) website- http://www.lam.gov.my/ under LAM committees and council