Skip to content
Rechercher

Appeal Panel Hearings

6 OCT. 2009

Mark Taylor Chartered Surveyors - 5 October 2009

Mark Taylor Chartered Surveyors [041197]
Appeal Panel hearing - 5 October 2009

Determination

Mark Taylor Chartered Surveyors (“the firm”) was not present at the hearing although submissions had been made in writing to the Panel.

The charges put before the Disciplinary Panel were that

  1. the firm did not carry out its professional work with expedition and with proper regard for the standards of service and customer care expected of it in breach of Rule 5 of the Rules of Conduct for Firms 2007; and
  2. the firm failed to co-operate fully with RICS staff in that it did not respond to written correspondence and telephone calls to the firm relating to complaints in breach of Rule 15 of the Rules of Conduct for Firms 2007.

The Panel has carefully reviewed the decision of the Disciplinary Panel made on 10 June 2009 by which the Disciplinary Panel found that the firm was in breach of Rules 5 and 15 of the Rules of Conduct for Firms 2007 and found the firm to be liable for disciplinary action. 

The Disciplinary Panel determined that the most appropriate sanction against the firm was to impose a fine of £2,000 in respect of each charge and to direct that the firm registration for regulation be removed.

The Panel has taken into account that it should not interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Panel unless satisfied by the Appellant that the original decision was wrong. The Disciplinary Panel’s decision was that the firm was liable to disciplinary action has not been challenged and this appeal relates only to the issue of sanction.

The firm provided written submissions but provided no explanation for its breaches of the Conduct of Firm Rules and the fact that it failed to co-operate with the RICS.

The Panel has given careful consideration to the submissions made by Mr Taylor as to the costs of re-branding the practice and renaming bank accounts, and the loss of RICS Clients Money Protection Services. However given the seriousness of the breaches in respect of the failure of client services and failure to co-operate with the RICS the Panel did not consider the decision of the Disciplinary Panel to be wrong. The appeal is dismissed.

The Panel awarded costs as claimed by the RICS and determined that its decision will be publicised in the usual manner on the RICS website and the appropriate local newspapers.

The Panel expressed its concern that the case had been brought solely against the firm and not included the member as an individual. The Panel invited RICS to consider bringing proceedings against individual members as well the firm concerned.