• Home
• Services
• About Us
• Downloads
• Blog
• Contact

Visitor Comments

1. Joseph Di Leo says:

   19/12/2011 at 11:58 AM

   I broadly agree with your anlaysis – except, perhaps, in two respects.

   Professionals do tend to behave in compliance with regulations generally (mistakes excepted).

   So, even though there appears to have been an instance of dishonesty and illegality, I don’t think that users of the services have much cause for concern generally, or indeed the community.

   With respect to the outcome.

   Professional bodies deal with issues in a broadly similar way. Of course, only the organisations’ tribunals will have the full facts for decision making, including the timings, if they do decide to pursue the issue.

   If the person concerned is a member of the RICS then the publication Sanctions Policy describes code infringements, penalties, and some considerations applicable.

   Reply
   • phil says:

     20/12/2011 at 11:14 AM

     hi Joseph

     Thanks for your comments. I think the issue here is that if a professional deliberately abuses a statutory process they should be held accountable. If its a genuine mistake because the person is unaware of his indiscretion, then it’s something that needs addressing but not necessarily sanctions by the regulating body. But if the surveyor refuses to accept he is wrong then the appropriate sanctions should be applied.

     Many thanks
2. Joseph Di Leo says:

   28/12/2011 at 10:01 AM

   Hello Philip
   I agree that accountability for default is a given for all professionals. The nature of a default, whether mistake or intention or other, merely influences the penalty – as does the character of the defaulter (and, sadly, occasionally the status). Ignorance can be no defence, even at this level of rule.
   If a person has voluntarily described responsibility for apparent wrongdoing, then it has become a regulatory body matter – an apology shouldn’t prevent the process starting. Else we could all breach our codes of conduct with impunity, knowing that an apology will immediately absolve us from penalty. In my opinion, this is the real concern point for the community – if a regulatory body isn’t seen to act, then some, perhaps many, professionals may have difficulty resisting the temptation to abuse process.

   Looking forward to the outcome with interest. Please update us when you know.

   Reply
   • Philip Antino says:

     28/12/2011 at 1:39 PM

     Hi Joesph

     thanks i agree with you whole heartedly, offering the offending surveyor the oppotunity to apologise was intended to put a stop to his nefarious behaviour but sdaly no so the matter has now been referred to two profesional bodies to investigate the actions and deal with them appropriately

Copyright © 2010 APA Property Services Limited, All rights reserved. Design by Subformat.