Struck Off - do not pay this man for a pretend survey
Extract from a RICS disciplinary panel hearing:
Panel’s Decision
The Panel has considered carefully all of the evidence produced in the case, along with submissions from both
parties. The Panel is concerned that the conduct of both Mr Thomas and the Firm clearly demonstrates a pattern
of behaviour which falls significantly short of the standards to be expected of a member of the RICS. Mr Thomas
and the Firm have failed, repeatedly, and over a significant period of time, to demonstrate an acceptable
standard of service to their clients, and failed to address effectively the client complaints which arose as a result.
In the case of Mr T, the concerns from which these proceedings arise began in at least February 2013 and were
not finally resolved until September 2013.
The Panel is particularly concerned at the failure of the Firm to discharge effectively its obligations to the
Ombudsman Services: Property. This despite a number of written reminders issued to him by the Ombudsman
Services: Property. The role of the Ombudsman Services regime is critical in providing important reassurance to
the public that complaints will be addressed and, where appropriate, suitable redress provided. Mr Thomas and
the Firm as a result of their actions undermined the effectiveness of the important public protection provided by
the Ombudsman Services: Property and, as a result, risked undermining the confidence of the public in the
surveyors’ profession.
The Panel notes that Mr Thomas did eventually take steps to resolve at least some of the various complaints
from which these proceedings arise. He only did so however once each of the cases was the subject of
investigation by the RICS. In the case of Ms G, who first complained to the RICS in August 2013, the Panel was
informed that the partial fee refund due to her had in fact only been made by Mr Thomas the day prior to the
hearing. In the cases of Mr S and Mr C, payment of the sums due to them had in fact been made by the RICS,
rather than by Mr Thomas. The Panel was informed that Mr Thomas undertook to reimburse the RICS in respect
of the sums it had paid, on his behalf, to Mr S and Mr C, within 28 days of the date of this hearing. The fact
remains, however, that, while Mr Thomas has taken a number of steps to resolve these various complaints, these
have come regrettably late and are still, as at the date of the hearing, unresolved.

