EWJ 60 April 2025 web - Journal - Page 106
Strengthening RICS’
Regulatory Operations
by Nigel Clarke - Chair, RICS Standards and Regulation Board
During February 2024, a Disciplinary Panel of the
RICS Regulatory Tribunal considered allegations
against Ms Emma Walker and her firm EW Estates
Ltd, resulting in the strongest possible regulatory
sanction – expulsion of Ms Walker and de-registration
of the firm from RICS membership. Ms Walker appealed the Disciplinary decision which was heard by
an Appeal Panel on 09 July 2024 and dismissed.
enhanced, including This should include reviewing
RICS’ existing consumer protections.
2. Data quality
l RICS should prioritise ongoing data verification
and updating exercises to ensure that all member data
is correct and verifiable.
l The Entry and Assessment teams should continue
to review and seek to broaden and strengthen quality
assurance mechanisms for enrolments and applications, to ensure that applicant information undergoes
increasingly robust verification.
This case highlighted that RICS is not immune from
those who act fraudulently. It brought into focus the
numerous checks and balances which were in place,
but did not identify the false assertions made on this
occasion.
l The Education and Qualifications Standards and
Regulation Assurance and Operations teams should
ensure they have seamless access to enrolment,
assessment and election data in order to check and
verify information independently.
Following this decision, the Standards and Regulation
Board (SRB) committed to a detailed review of the
case and the relevant regulatory functions. The SRB’s
review focussed on the RICS’ operational regulatory
activities, whether they are effective and fit for purpose, and any further improvements needed to
strengthen trust in the profession. This was a necessary step to assure the wider profession and other
stakeholders that RICS is undertaking its regulatory
functions effectively.
l RICS should ensure that its public-facing member
register and its data undergo robust verification, with
IT systems in place to support it.
3. Guidance for counsellors and assessors
l The review of the current requirements, processes
and guidance for counsellors and assessors should
continue at pace.
The review acknowledged the actions already taken,
and made the following recommendations to enhance
the rigour of RICS’ assurance processes:
Since SRB became responsible for entry and assessment processes in 2021, additional controls have been
implemented and undergone rigorous review by an
external specialist audit company. Further changes to
these processes will go in tandem with proposed
changes to post-qualification Continuing Professional
Development (CPD).
1. Enhance the understanding of the role of SRB
l RICS should undertake a communication and
education campaign to inform its members, stakeholders and the public about the role of the SRB and
professional regulation within RICS.
Although the Institution has received harsh criticism
regarding this case, the review highlights that
professional regulation within RICS has functioned
independently, appropriately and with integrity. Importantly, when credible and actionable evidence was
available an active investigation was pursued quickly,
effectively and with the outcome transparently
published.
l The case highlighted the negative consequences of
misleading information being shared on social media,
amplifying the detrimental effect of the former member’s behaviour on consumers. RICS should review
how it uses communications channels to respond to
misinformation in the public domain.
l Funding and resourcing for the implementation of
the Entry and Assessment Review recommendations
and the investigations functions will need to be considered carefully, alongside its implementation
timetable.
RICS has also published two practice alerts, reminding all RICS members who undertake Home Surveys
for consumers of their professional and regulatory
obligations, and setting out the risks associated with
the volume of complaints to RICS regarding the
quality of Home Surveys:
l RICS should review regulatory requirements for
Regulated Firms (including the requirement to maintain professional indemnity insurance and appropriate run-off cover) to ensure their effectiveness and
clarity.
See, https://www.rics.org/regulation/reporting-concerns/report-concerns-about-a-rics-member-or-rics-regulated-firm, to
find out more on how we handle complaints and
concerns at RICS.
l The newly created Pilot Consumer Working Group
should consider the wider consumer protection
framework and report to SRB on areas to be
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
104
APRIL 2025
