Skip to content
Search

Forthcoming Panel Hearings

10 JUN 2019

Mr A & J Stone - 24 – 28 June 2019

Disciplinary Panel Hearing

Case of Mr Andrew Stone FRICS [1249107], Australia
And
Mr Jonathon Stone MRICS [6415976], Dorset, UK

On

Monday 24 June – Friday 28 June 2019 at 08:00 hrs BST

At

RICS, 55 Colmore Row, Birmingham, B3 2AA

The formal charges against Mr Andrew Stone FRICS are as follows:

1.
a) He signed a declaration in respect of Jonathan Stone's second APC application, which incorrectly recorded:
i. In his Critical Analysis Study, that X was engaged "in July 2014 to undertake a W investigation" at H I S;
ii. That Jonathon Stone had acted as an "Engineer's representative";
iii. That X had acted as Counsellor and / or consented to his signature being used to sign the form as Jonathon Stone's Counsellor;

b) His actions at 1 a above were: i. Dishonest in that he knew the representation(s) at i – iii were untrue;
ii. In the alternative to 1 b (i) above, his actions lacked integrity in that he was reckless as to the accuracy of the representation(s).

2.
a) He signed the APC application(s) as Jonathon Stone's APC Supervisor when:
i. He was not his APC Supervisor or had not appropriately supervised him;
ii. His actions at 2 a (i) above were dishonest in that he knew he was not his APC Supervisor or knew he was not an appropriate person to supervise Jonathon Stone;
iii. In the alternative to 2 a (ii) his actions lacked integrity in that he should have known he had not been Jonathan's APC supervisor or that he had not supervised him appropriately.

The allegations are alleged to be contrary to Rule 3 of the Rules of Conduct for Members 2007
Andrew Stone is therefore liable to disciplinary action under RICS Bye-law 5.2.2(a) or (c).

The formal charges against you, Jonathon Stone MRICS, are as follows:

1.
a) He submitted a second APC application dated 5 January 2016 which incorrectly stated:
i. In a Critical Analysis Study, X was engaged "in July 2014 to undertake a W investigation" at H I S;
ii. He had acted as an "Engineer's representative";

b) His actions in respect of 1 a above were:
i. Dishonest in that he knew the second application mispresented the date X was engaged to undertake this investigation and / or his role as an "Engineer's representative";
ii. In the alternative to 1 b (i) above, his actions lacked integrity in that he was reckless as to whether RICS was misled in respect of the date of the investigation and / or his description of role as an "Engineer's representative".

2.
a) In his second APC Application:
i. Represented that Mr X had performed the role of Counsellor;
ii. Used Mr X electronic signature to indicate he had signed / was content to sign the declaration, as Counsellor, in support of Jonathon Stone;

b) His actions at 1 a above were:
i. Misleading in that Mr X had not performed the role of Counsellor and / or did not consent to his signature to be used for this purpose;
ii. Dishonest in that he knew Mr X had not performed the role of Counsellor and / or consented to his signature being used for this purpose;
iii. In the alternative to 2 b (ii), his actions lacked integrity in that he was reckless as to whether Mr X understood his signature was to be used to this purpose and / or reckless about misleading RICS about Mr X's role.

3.
a) He failed:
i. To obtain his employer's consent to rely on the W Investigation at H I S as part of his APC application(s);
ii. To notify RICS of changes to his Supervisor and/or Counsellor;

b) i. His actions at 3 a (i) above were dishonest in that he knowingly breached his professional obligations under the APC Guidance in order to conceal his application(s) from his employer;
ii. In the alternative to 3 b (i) his actions lacked integrity in that he was reckless as to his professional obligations under the APC Guidance.

4.
a) In respect of one or both of the APC applications he relied on Andrew Stone as his Supervisor when:
i. Andrew Stone was not his APC Supervisor;
ii. In the alternative, Andrew Stone had not appropriately supervised him.

b) His actions at 4 a above were:
i. Dishonest in that he knew Andrew Stone was not his APC Supervisor or had not appropriately supervised him;
ii. In the alternative to 4 b (i) above, lacked integrity in that he was reckless within the application form(s) in representing Andrew Stone had been his APC Supervisor or supervised him appropriately when he had not.

5.
a) In representations to the RICS he incorrectly stated "my APC Counsellor never changed";

b) His actions above were:

i. Dishonest in that he knew Andrew Stone had acted as a Counsellor as confirmed by him in his first APC application and / or he had registered X as his Counsellor in 2013;

ii. In the alternative to 5 b (i) above, his actions lacked integrity in that he was reckless as to whether his representations to RICS were misleading.

The allegations are alleged to be contrary to Rule 3 of the Rules of Conduct for Members 2007
Jonathon Stone is therefore liable to disciplinary action under RICS Bye-law 5.2.2(a) or (c)

This Hearing commenced on Monday 24 June 2019 and adjourned on Friday 28 June 2019. The case is part heard, and a forthcoming notice will be posted on the website 14 days prior to the new hearing date.

Anyone wishing to attend please contact:

Miss Maria Choudhury
Regulatory Tribunal Executive
T +44 (0)20 7334 3793
E mchoudhury@rics.org