Report of the Disciplinary Board 15-16 August 2023

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 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.