Professional Conduct Committee

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.

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 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.