RICS レビュー 62

Biggest scam. RIC will do everything to get out of you money. RIC won't support you and either helps you finish the course.

My neighbours carried out building works and appointed a RICS surveyor to handle the Party Wall Agreement. They came to my property, took photos, and everything seemed sensible at the time. I had never dealt with surveyors or Party Wall Agreements before, so I trusted the process.

During the works, the party wall collapsed into my neighbours’ garden and my path was damaged. My property foundations were left exposed. I repeatedly asked the surveyor for help and clarification but received nothing. I couldn’t get through to them by phone or email. The builders returned and started digging into the party wall line with diggers so I demanded a stop notice. Nothing happened.

I reviewed the Party Wall Agreement in more detail afterwards, it became clear it wasn’t fit for purpose. I contacted the surveyor again to understand what had gone wrong but still got no response.

Out of frustration, I wrote a review about my experience. Instead of addressing any of the issues, the surveyor threatened me with legal action and still refused to engage or carry out their duties.

I raised a formal complaint with RICS. Three to four months later, I have received no support, no updates, and no progress from either the surveyor or RICS. I don’t even have access to the original “before” photos taken by the surveyor, which I now need as evidence.

My experience has left me feeling completely unprotected as a homeowner. If you are dealing with a Party Wall Agreement, do not assume the process will safeguard you. Get your own independent surveyor and have every document checked by someone you trust and run it through AI for a sanity check.

This "standard" is meaningless. We paid for a level 2 survey and he didn't spot rotted beams in the loft or woodworm in the garage beams. The rest of the survey was just pointing out the obvious and avoiding liability by recommending we speak to other experts. Theses surveys are a total waste of time. You would be much better off finding a good builder, plumber and electrician and paying them each for an hours work to look over the property. Absolute waste of time and money.

Not fit for purpose. Their tag line is "Firms that are Regulated by RICS commit to the highest professional and ethical standards." This is certainly not our experience.”

Our Managing Agents for our leasehold flats is only a member due to an 82 year old director ex-Council surveyor who should have retired decades ago.

Our issue is that the freeholder and director of the MA has from Covid lockdown in March 2020 date refused to issue Service Charge Accounts, demands for Ground Rent, Building Insurance renewals, and Budgetary Accounts. In 2024 as long suffering leaseholders our concerns were all sent to RICS. Within weeks we heard that RICS has closed the cases and their collective decision was final. No explanations were forthcoming.

I made a formal complaint against an MRICS member who is a director of a managing agent that has:
Been expelled from the Property Redress Scheme (illegal to trade under LTA 1987 s.42A) and continued to act whilst expelled (made payments from leaseholder funds).

Collected £241,473.81 of leaseholder ground-rent and building-insurance money but not paid it to the freeholder (confirmed in writing by Schroders, the freeholder’s agent).

Produced non-compliant 2024 service-charge accounts with around £100k–£150k of leaseholder funds unaccounted for.

RICS’s response:
‘these are legal issues that fall outside the remit of RICS Regulation to determine’
‘we are unable to investigate the firm’s actions or its compliance with statutory requirements’
So apparently RICS believes that misuse of statutory trust funds, illegal trading, and potential fraud by one of its members are not matters of professional conduct.

This is the same organisation that claims to “set and uphold standards for the profession”.

If you are a leaseholder relying on RICS members to protect your money, think again.

They have made it clear they will look the other way.

RICS is able to act as they do as they are subject to public law, not private law. If you have had a complaint that you feel was not properly handled by RICS (including ignoring breaches of the Building Act 1984), your option for escalation is to spend £ks request a judicial review of the fairness of their findings (Form N461), and then on to the Royal Courts of Justice which at best gets them to review the fairness of their complaint handling. As their current culture apparently stands from these reviews, they are not acting in the public interest.

Whilst RICS is mandated to act in the public interest, if it fails to properly regulate its members, UK Law dictates that we private individual home owners have no applicable private laws to protect us from this (yes, this means the reality of your roof being non compliant with the law is nothing that RICS has to do anything about, even if their members signed off those breaches of the Building Act).

As members of the public we should understand that this is how the RICS designation functions, and accept that it is unlikely any report issued by a RICS member is worth more than the paper it is written on as they will not be held accountable by RICS for that report. You have no option for recourse against RICS should it be found that a RICS surveyor failed in their findings, even if RICS failed to hold that surveyor to account. If you have hired a RICS surveyor and it turns out their report will not stand up in court, it is you who will be left bearing the costs as in my experience RICS will not stand against its own members. Do not hire RICS surveyors.

There are other qualified BS memberships where we can hold the body to account if they do not regulate their members so this would be a better choice in my opinion.

RICS Governance: Observations of Institutional Issues

I am placing on record my concerns regarding the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and its handling of matters related to the Heathrow Vortex Impact Protection Scheme (HVIPS), for which their member Tuffin Ferraby Taylor (TFT) acted as the sole surveyors. In my experience, there appear to have been shortcomings in the management of regulatory oversight and member compliance.

Documented Regulatory Matters
A formal complaint I submitted regarding the conduct of RICS-accredited surveyors, TFT, was handled by Mrs. Sophia Jones (RICS Investigation Specialist). During this process, an investigation was initiated (apparently by Mrs Jones herself) concerning my independent expert witness report, which I had submitted as evidence against TFT. I found this concerning given the issues raised in my complaint. Mr. Brendan Harper (RICS Regulatory Investigation Manager) subsequently oversaw the case, and internal escalation was refused despite my submissions of evidence relating to structural and regulatory compliance issues, as well as evidence directly contradicting TFT’s claims that their scope was “external only.” I also provided proof to RICS leadership and governance teams that the certification issued (NFRC BRCC) was not valid for this work, but this was not addressed.

Certification and Scope of Work
RICS personnel stated that the scope of work for the complaint was limited to an external audit. However, I submitted written communications from TFT senior leadership, including Director Nathan Smith and Associate Director Elsa Quinton, confirming that internal inspections of roof voids, Velux windows and loft had taken place.

Additionally, I provided RICS with evidence that the NFRC CPS certificate does not extend to dormer insulation or windows under UKAS accreditation rules. My concern is that homeowners relying on this certification may be misinformed about its coverage. RICS leadership did not take action to address this regulatory issue.

Leadership and Governance
I personally notified the RICS President and Governance team of these matters, including concerns regarding the validity of certifications and internal procedures. I did not observe any intervention or remedial action following these notifications, which has led me to question the effectiveness of governance in this area.

Concluding Observations
Overall, my experience has led me to conclude that the systems in place did not fully address the issues I raised, nor the ongoing systemic certification issues affecting thousands of members of the public. The photos I have supplied RICS demonstrate that the work completed was not compliant with Building Regulations and should not have been signed off by TFT. Despite having this evidence and additional documentation, RICS has declared "no breach" here, which suggests that the institution may prioritise the interests of larger members over the public interest.

Underhand, unhelpful, unscrupulous, undermining, overall a total shambles.

Absolutely ridiculous and unprofessional company to be a part of.

RICS has repeatedly dismissed detailed evidence of a property managment agent's misconduct that I submitted, claiming no “substantive further evidence” despite a clear timeline and documentation. This raises serious concerns about their impartiality and transparency.

Their conducts suggest a failure to uphold the professional standards they claim to represent. I’ve lost confidence in RICS as a regulatory body and would advise others to approach with caution.

We complained to RICS about the surveyors who "contract managed" our house restoration after a fire.
The surveyors were appalling, their behaviour was appalling, their technical knowledge was really poor, their communication dire, and they were incompetent.

1. RICS took the investigation on (rare in itself), but it took them over a year to even start.
2. The first investigator was incompetent, misconstrued/misinterpreted nearly everything. We started noticing a pattern (standard avoidance technique?) whereby our actual, serious complaints were morphed into trivial matters, deemed not worthy of further action.
After we complained, RICS reopened the investigation, appointing a "lead investigator".
This took ages, requiring constant reminders from us.
3. The new investigator at least outlined our complaints properly. But then dragged out the investigation for months and months, before arriving at, quite frankly, ridiculous conclusions.
Many of our serious complaints were just brushed aside, despite compelling evidence of malpractice and incompetence against the surveyors.
We had complained to the surveyors themselves, and in their own words (from their internal investigation), their lack of action and supervision had allowed the contractor to drag out the work and delay the renovations to our house "with impunity".
None of this seemed to matter to RICS, who concluded further action was not in the public interest.

My experience is that RICS - in terms of investigating complaints against their members - are not fit for purpose.
I found that they do everything to wriggle out of allocating any blame, and do their utmost to fail to see the point.
I found them to be incompetent beyond belief.

Recommendation: if you have a complaint about a surveyor, don't use RICS. They are a complete waste of time. If you can afford it, backed by evidence, go down the legal route. Money is all they understand.
(Also, don't bother with CEDR, who we also found in our experience are not fit for purpose).

Not doing their job

They dismissed my complaint outright by saying “go to CEDR first and then we’ll see”. That’s NOT how you’re supposed to work!?

I have ZERO faith in this place. Their surveyors missed massive things to do with insulation, damp, mold- i mean comon and they didn’t follow the RICS rules of conduct. And yet the RICS protects them!?

How can we hold these negligent people accountable ?

Shame how some 'Qualified Chartered Surveyors' spoil it for myself & others.
I was asked to look into a surveyor who gave false information, have been reported to RICS who of course did nothing.
This surveyor quotes:
He visited the place - he didn't!
Took a photo - which the neighbour has since stated he took himself!
On the photo the surveyor draws a red boundary line- cutting off my clients wall altogether! (due to neighbours encroachment)
Took no notice of my clients eaves encroaching as stated on Land Registry.
Didn't notice neighbours 1st floor encroaches at front only.
Looked at identical properties in the road - there aren't any!
ALL properties in road have completely straight boundary lines.
Do you wish me to continue........

Surveying company have lied repeatedly which, although fully evidenced, is not a problem to RICS.

Not a problem to RICS. Let that sink in.

Feel a fool for having any faith in them.

I submitted a formal complaint to RICS about the conduct of one of its regulated members, Rendall & Rittner. Over the course of 135 days, I had to repeatedly chase RICS for updates, and progress only occurred after I threatened to escalate the matter publicly.

When a decision was finally issued, the outcome was baffling: RICS acknowledged that there “may be a technical breach of RICS’ rules/standards” on multiple points, but still concluded that no action was warranted. Even more concerning, their investigator admitted she never contacted the firm in question to seek clarification — all conclusions were drawn without hearing both sides.

When I raised this as part of a formal complaint about RICS’s own process, the response included multiple apologies for service delays but defended the investigation as complete, even though their own correspondence showed contradictions and missing steps.

The entire experience gave me the impression of a professional body more interested in shielding its paying members than upholding any meaningful standards. Their process is opaque, self-protective, and seems designed to avoid accountability while maintaining the appearance of regulation.

This is not a functioning regulator — at least not one that inspires any public trust.

HAVING CONTACTED RICS REGARDING ONE OF THEIR MEMBERS I HAVE COME TO THE DEFINITE CONCLUSION THAT THEY LIKE MANY OTHER GOVERNING BODIES DO NOT WANT TO BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM. AFTER CONTACTING THEM BY TELEPHONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED UP BY AN EMAIL TO WHICH I WAS INFORMED I WOULD RECEIVE A REPLY WITHIN 28 DAYS THIS DID NOT HAPPEN AND I HAD TO TELEPHONE THEM AGAIN TO WHICH THEY REPLIED GIVING ME A 2 DAY DEADLINE TO REPLY BACK TO THEM. I AM 82 YEARS OLD AND BLIND AND HAVE TO RELY ON OTHERS TO HELP ME TO DEAL WITH ANY ADMIN MATTERS. IT WAS REQUESTED I SEND ALL INFORMATION REGARDING MY COMPLAINT TO WHICH I DID, AFTER APPROX 7 WEEKS HAD PASSED AND STILL NOTHING FROM RICS I PHONED THEM ONCE AGAIN AND WAS INFORMED THEY WOULD CHASE IT UP. I THEN RECEIVED A CALL FROM RICS STATING THE PERSON I HAD LODGED A COMPLAINT ABOUT AGREED THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH HER GETTING BACK TO ME BUT NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT A PRINTING MISTAKE OR A POSSIBLE GENUINE MISTAKE OVER £260,000 HAVING BEEN PRINTED INSTEAD OF £360,000 WHICH I HAD PAID £2040 FOR THE SURVEYORS REPORT AND DESPITE PHONING AND EMAILING IT WAS NEVER RECTIFIED FROM 7 MONTHS AGO WHEN I RECEIVED THE SURVEYORS REPORT.
Now again after 2 months have lapsed and still no reply from RICS I phoned and spoken to the person who had been dealing with my claim. He informed me that my file had been put in the wrong place hence the reason for not replying back to me, how's that for a feeble excuse. In no uncertain terms, RICS intend to do nothing about my complaint regarding one of their RIC registered members, so don't be fooled by assuming that the surveyor you are dealing with is any more legitimate just because they are registered with RICS who do absolutely nothing if you have the necesseity to complain about one of their registered members. I am now contacting the Constitutional Settlements Unit at the Cabinet Office to inform them of the ordeal I have encountered with RICS, wanting to know how RICS are allowed to use the Royal as part of their name, and yet can act in such a couldn't care less attitude when one has a necessity to complain about one of their members.

It's taken over a year for RICS to follow up on our complaint logged on 31 March 2024 with a Leasehold Property Services Charges company not complying with RICS membership operating practices. Despite the '28 days', turning into 9 months & supposedly 3 x different lead investigators being appointed, then us raising a formal complaint against itself, & a new senior investigator being appointed,13 months on we're no further forward. Are RICS incompetent or choosing to be obstructive with delaying tactics to avoid taking action against ' one of their own'?

H a house survey carried out by a Maverick one man band Surveyor who lied and made false allegations about my property of which I proved correct, reported him to this lot with photos, who said they have looked into the matter and will not go any further !!!!

Judging by all these negative reviews its about time they were taken to court !!!!

Corrupt and ignores evidence of its members failing to adhere to its own professed standards. Total shambles. RICS does not provide any reassurance to the public. Until the Institution can restore trust and confidence it exists solely for itself. Hold your heads in shame; you know you are dishonest and you are fooling nobody.

The fees are a waste of money. It feels like a scam. You get nothing from them. I wouldnt recommend people to join the RICS