Disciplinary Panel Hearing
Case: Dunphys Surveyors [002223]
And
Mr P Simon AssocRICS [6582822]
Date: Wednesday 24 – Friday 26 June 2026
Time: 10:00 hrs BST
The formal charges are as follows:
Member
1. Between around 26 September 2022 and 7 March 2024, Paul Simon, in his capacity as Responsible Principal and / or a Director of the Firm, failed to cooperate with RICS in that he failed to provide any or all of the information requested in a timely manner, or at all, in relation to the concerns raised by:
a. Robert Stain;
b. John Burgess;
c. Peter Stephens;
d. Sara Persad / NHG;
e. Ian Bonnett;
f. Mary Thornhill;
g. Sean O’Brien;
h. Dharmesh Mehta.
Contrary to Rule 1 of the Rules of Conduct with effect from 2 February 2022.
Mr Simon is therefore liable to disciplinary action under RICS Bye-law 5.2.2(c).
Firm
2. Dunphys Chartered Surveyors failed to carry out its professional work with proper regard for standards of service and customer care expected of it and / or failed to comply with its professional obligations in relation to the following:
a. John Burgess in that the Firm:
-
- Failed to pay rent / money owing to Mr Burgess in a timely manner, or at all;
- Failed to pay money collected for insurance to the insurer or Mr Burgess in a timely manner or at all;
- Failed to provide adequate statements relating the property / properties being managed in a timely manner or at all.
- Failed to address his complaints or concerns, or those raised on his behalf, adequately, and / or in a timely manner;
- Failed to ensure deposit(s) for properties no longer managed by the Firm were forwarded as requested within a reasonable time;
- Continued to make rent demand(s) after the contract was terminated.
b. Peter Stephens in that the Firm:
i. Failed to pay rent owing to Mr Stephens in a timely manner, or at all;
ii. Failed to address his complaints or concerns, or those raised on his behalf, adequately, and / or in a time timely manner;
iii. Failed to provide adequate statements relating the property / properties being managed in a timely manner or at all.
c. NHG / Sara Persad in that the Firm:
- Failed to pay rent owing to NHG in a timely manner, or at all;
- Failed to address complaints or concerns raised by NHG adequately, and / or in a timely manner;
- Continued to make rent demand(s) after the contract was terminated
- Failed to provide adequate statements relating the property / properties being managed in a timely manner or at all.
d. Ian Bonnett in that the Firm:
- Failed to pay rent owing to Mr Bonnett in a timely manner, or at all;
- Failed to address his complaints or concerns, or those raised on his behalf, adequately, and / or in a timely manner;
- Failed to provide adequate statements / information relating the property / properties being managed in a timely manner or at all.
- Failed pay / renew insurance in a timely manner.
e. Mary Thornhill in that the Firm:
- Failed to pay rent / money owing to Ms Thornhill in a timely manner, or at all;
- Failed to address her complaints or concerns, or those raised on her behalf, adequately, and / or in a timely manner;
- Failed to provide adequate statements relating the property / properties being managed in a timely manner or at all; Failed to ensure deposit(s) for property / properties no longer managed by the Firm were forwarded as requested within a reasonable time or at all.
f. Sean O’Brien in that the Firm:
- In respect of service charge payments paid by or on behalf of Mr Barron, failed to forward these to the new management agent or return them;
- Failed to make reasonable efforts to assist with the transfer of management to Llewelyn & co;
- Failed to address Mr O’Brien complaints or concerns adequately, and / or in a timely manner.
g. Dharmesh Mehta in that the Firm:
- Failed to pay rent owing to Mr Mehta in a timely manner, or at all;
- Failed to address his complaints or concerns, or those raised on his behalf, adequately, and / or in a time timely manner;
- Failed to provide adequate statements / information relating the property / properties being managed in a timely manner or at all.
Contrary to Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules of Conduct for Firms version 6 and/or version 7 / Rule 1 and 3 Rules of Conduct (effective from 2 February 2022)
The Firm is therefore liable to disciplinary action under RICS Bye-law 5.3.2(c).
3. Between 26 September 2022 and 5 October 2023, Dunphys Chartered Surveyors failed to cooperate with RICS in that it failed to provide any or all of the information requested in a timely manner, or at all, in relation to the concerns raised by:
a. Robert Stain;
b. John Burgess;
c. Peter Stephens;
d. Sara Persad / NHG;
e. Ian Bonnett;
f. Mary Thornhill;
g. Sean O’Brien;
h. Dharmesh Mehta.
Contrary to Rule 1 of the Rules of Conduct with effect from 2 February 2022
The Firm is therefore liable to disciplinary action under RICS Bye-law 5.3.2(c).
4. Between 6 August 2020 and 13 January 2021, Dunphys Chartered Surveyors failed to cooperate with RICS in that it failed to provide adequate information in a timely manner that had been reasonably requested by RICS in connection with a Regulatory Review Visit.
Contrary to Rule 14 of the Rules of Conduct for Firms version 7 with effect from 2 March 2020.
The Firm is therefore liable to disciplinary action under RICS Bye-law 5.3.2(c).
5. Between 2 March 2020 and 14 January 2021 Dunphys Chartered Surveyors (the Firm) failed adequately to safeguard or preserve the security of clients’ money in that:
a. the following of the Firm’s client accounts did not include the word ‘client’ in their title:
i. Account no xxxxx507 Dunphys Ltd Management Commission Account;
ii. Account no xxxxx550 Dun re 4 Cressys Corner;
iii. Account no xxxxx597 Dun re 487 London Road;
iv. Account no xxxxx754 Dun re Aqua Technologies Ltd.
b. The Firm failed to evidence that regular bank account reconciliations were undertaken for one or more of its client accounts and/or demonstrate that bank account reconciliations were reviewed by a principal or senior staff member of the Firm in that:
i. It was unable to locate the cashbook within the system it used for accounting and property management purposes;
ii. It was unable to produce historic ledger balances.
c. The Firm’s client ledger balances disclosed the following ledgers were overdrawn:
i. Patricia Ford-Hanes and Sheila Curtis service charge -£8,926.43;
ii. The Feathers Chester Street Wrexham Limited service charge £2,896.23;
iii. Warwool Limited service charge -£6,180.00.
d. The Firm was unable to break down the balance of its Deposit Control Account to show the funds held for each client.
Contrary to Rule 8 of the Rules of Conduct for Firms version 7 with effect from 2 March 2020.
The Firm is therefore liable to disciplinary action under RICS Bye-law 5.3.2(c).
Anyone wishing to attend should contact:
Jae Berry
Regulatory Tribunal Manager
jberry@rics.org