An architect has had his warrant suspended for six months after the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers found he was “grossly negligent” when working on a construction site in Birkirkara.
The chamber found that the condition report and the demolition method statements that David Psaila produced lacked “adequate professional rigour”, which constituted negligence. It said Psaila breached the chamber’s code of professional conduct.
The majority of chamber investigations end in reprimands to the architect. A few lead to a warrant suspension but most of those are short, three-month suspensions.
Psaila’s six-month suspension is rare and indicates the chamber was seriously concerned with his behaviour. The decision followed an investigation into a complaint filed by a couple who live next to the construction site.
Neighbours' fears
For months since the beginning of demolition works, Matthew and Ramona Montebello had complained about how “shoddy and dangerous” demolition works next door were damaging their home and causing them to live in fear of their house collapsing.
“My children are afraid to sleep in their own bedroom,” Montebello told Lovin Malta last year, a few days after filing the complaint to the chamber. “I don’t blame them because I’m afraid too. If something happens to them, I will regret it my whole life,” he had said.
The huge construction site in Fleur-de-Lys, Birkirkara, is a former glass factory which Psaila is developing into a block of offices, apartments, maisonettes, penthouses and garages.
“The poor-quality documentation, as well as Psaila’s demeanour and communication with the complainants throughout the execution of the project dented their confidence in his professional integrity and good faith and, by inference, in that of the entire professional body,” the chamber said.
It also found Psaila breached the chamber’s code of professional conduct because, apart from being the developer himself, he was also concurrently acting as the architect in charge and the site technical officer.
It noted how, despite his role as site technical officer, he was absent from the construction site during delicate demolition works.
“The fact that no serious accident happened or that more serious damage to the third-party wall did not occur during the demolition is, in the council’s considered view based on the evidence, fortuitous more than a result of professional rigour or the competence of the contractor,” the chamber said.
Architect defends work
Psaila denies any wrongdoing and said that he “acted in good faith”, that the chamber’s decision is not based on the law but on its own rules and that he will appeal the decision. “This decision is based on a number of inconsistencies, since I always acted ethically and performed all my duties to the highest standard,” he told Times of Malta in a reply to questions.
“Even though this site is situated adjacent to the property of 13 different owners, the only damages caused to third parties were minor cracks, as confirmed by the complainant’s architect.”
He said he acted in full accordance with the law and worked only with the necessary building permits and the clearance from the Building and Construction Authority (BCA).
“It seems that what is acceptable to the BCA is not acceptable to the Kamra tal-Periti,” he said.
He said that during the works he always took the necessary safety precautions to avoid any damages to third parties and, in fact, “the 12 other owners of the adjacent building were all satisfied with the works”.
Psaila has two weeks to appeal the chamber’s decision and the warrant suspension begins the day the notice appears in The Malta Government Gazette.
Architects who have had their warrant suspended may not file planning applications or sign documents, may not oversee ongoing works and are prohibited from working as architects until the end of the suspension period.
They must relay their current work to other architects.
National and EU authorities and institutions are notified of the suspension, which is also marked in their professional conduct.