The Professional Conduct Hub

The Disciplinary Board found that a Member prepared and authored a report which said it was taking a “conservation-based approach” but which failed to meet the standard reasonably to be expected of a conservation engineer, and, that the electronic signature of a CARE registered engineer was placed on the report irresponsibly, without any due diligence having been undertaken by the Member to ensure that the Engineer was aware of the content of the report and that the Engineer consented to his electronic signature being placed upon it.

The PCC found that a Member failed to address properly, or at all, the client’s concerns which clearly set out that the intended services had not, in the client’s view, been carried out in full.

The PCC publishes the outcomes of 3 cases.

This report from the PCC details the misrepresentation by an organisation in respect of the Institution's name and titles.

A Disciplinary Board was convened on 19 July 2023, in relation to a Complaint received in respect of the conduct of a Fellow of the Institution at the time of the complaint, Mervyn Moses Shaya.

A Disciplinary Board was convened on 14 December 2022, in respect of matters referred to it by the Professional Conduct Committee.

The matters arose in respect of the engagement of Mr Andrew Dust CEng MIStructE in a project, as the adjoining property owner’s Party Wall Surveyor in accordance with the Party Wall Etc Act 1996 (“the Act”).
The complaint alleged that Mr. Dust acted unethically and unprofessionally with the intention of generating excessive fees for himself.

The PCC reports on three disciplinary cases 

The Disciplinary Board found that a Chartered Member failed to provide a brief or breakdown of costs before commencing work; failed to accept numerous instructions from the Owners to terminate work; made unfounded and derogatory assertions about the Complainants that were reckless, and which injured the reputation of the Complainants; failed to uphold the reputation of the profession; and failed to act with integrity and fairness. 

The PCC found that a Graduate Member failed to respond to requests from the checking engineer; failed to demonstrate the competency required to undertake work that involved basement works with adjacent properties; failed to provide evidence of Professional Indemnity insurance cover; and failed to provide adequate terms of engagement. 

The Institution publishes the outcomes of five separate cases arising out of complaints submitted to the Institution.

The PCC reports on the outcome of two complaints: 

1st Complaint: PCC found that a member's WhatsApp messages were wholly inappropriate as a means of setting the terms of appointment with the member's client, and, that the resulting lack of clarity directly contributed to the client’s misunderstandings.

2nd Complaint: PCC found that a member’s lack of any follow-up in writing after the member's site-visit and investigation, was unfair to the Client and exacerbated his Client’s disappointment in relation to the service received. This is applicable even in the circumstances where a client requests that no formal report be produced.

The Institution publishes the outcomes of three separate disciplinary cases arising out of complaints submitted to the Institution. The reports here mentioned detail the findings and sanctions issued against those members, one of which includes the Suspension of a member

The PCC found that a member failed issue an Apology to the complainant, as required of the member by a previous PCC Decision.

The Board considered matters in respect of the issue of a report on a listed building by a member of the Institution, whereby an electronic signature was inserted which purported to be that of an accredited engineer but in fact was inserted without the knowledge of the signatory. The report reflected very poorly on the accredited engineer and on the accreditation body.  

The PCC found that a member failed to discharge their duties with care, courtesy, impartiality and fidelity; failed to document the structure of his organisation; failed to engage in detailed discussion of how the clients’ requirements would be met, failed to supply a letter of engagement or acceptance; failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the client understood the scope of the service to be provided including any limitations; failed to supply terms of appointment before any work commenced; failed to ensure that the brief and terms of payment were agreed by the client; and failed to obtain written acceptance prior to commencement of work

A complaint was made to the Institution arising out of the appointment of a member to review the work of another structural engineer. Taking all matters into account, the PCC found that the member failed to notify the other structural engineer of their involvement and appointment and failed to seek clarification from the other structural engineer in regards to their design concerns.

A complaint was made to the Institution regarding the content of a structural appraisal written by a member in relation to damage to a porch. Taking all matters into account the PCC found that the member included in their report letter an irrelevant, unwarranted and wholly inappropriate description of their client.  The PCC found further that reference to a person’s nationality and/or physical size, or any description of a person’s demeanours, has no justifiable place in a professional report such as that provided by the member.

A complaint was made to the Institution arising out of the appointment of a member to provide structural engineering services for the removal of internal walls within an apartment building.

A complaint was made to the Institution arising out of the appointment of a member to provide structural engineering services for an extension of the basement of a property. 

A complaint was made to the Institution arising out of the appointment of a member to produce a report on a property that their client was intending to buy.

The Board found that a member had breached Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Conduct, and in particular, that the member deliberately sought to mislead the Disciplinary Board whilst giving evidence at a hearing on 14 March 2017.