Skip to content
Buscar

News & opinion

15 AGO. 2018

Insight into our regulatory model: complaints and disciplinary action

RICS provides independent, risk-based regulation of the profession in the public interest.

While 80% of our regulatory resources are invested in providing our professionals and firms with support and guidance through assurance, we have prepared two guidance documents that provide more insight into other important aspects of our regulatory model.

How do we respond to complaints?

The complaints we receive help us identify risk trends and developments. In a small number of cases, complaints also help us identify those professionals and firms who pose an individual risk to the marketplace. We may take disciplinary action as a result.

The insight we derive from complaints is vital to our role in defending the public interest and maintaining the reputation of our profession.

The guidance answers the following questions:

  • What do we do when we receive a complaint?
  • What do we consider as evidence?
  • How do we define misconduct and serious professional incompetence?
  • How do we define the public interest?
  • What happens if we decide not to start an investigation?

How do we decide whether to take disciplinary action?

Where it is necessary, we take disciplinary action in order to protect the public interest and defend the reputation of the profession. This supports a safe marketplace.

This guidance details the check and balances that ensure we only take disciplinary action when appropriate, and that we do so in a targeted, consistent, and transparent manner. It also contains information about what types of practice or behaviour may result in a decision to take disciplinary action against a firm or member.

The guidance sets out:

The overarching principles of RICS regulation

  • The rigour we expect from our decision-makers
  • When we consider taking interim measures during ongoing investigations
  • How we consider evidence
  • The role of the Realistic Prospect Test
  • How we assess ‘seriousness’
  • How we define the public interest