Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors - Why I resigned my membership ‘FFPWS - grade’ and am no longer a member FPWS.
I am occasionally asked if I am a member of the FPWS, although nobody has ever asked the same regarding P&T, and when I say no, I feel obliged to explain why not, which can be quite difficult within an initial telephone call, so I decided to elaborate on the reasoning here.
I was appointed by the Building Owner in 2017 and because the Adjoining Owner’s surveyor did not act effectively I served an ex parte Award in February 2018, the award was not appealed. The surveyor in question, David Turner, raised a complaint about me to RICS, CIOB, FPWS & P&T.
RICS rejected the complaint in its entirety but the FPWS upheld his complaint and imposed sanctions upon me. I find the reasoning behind their decision totally absurd, hence my writing here about the matter.
Until recently (2018) I used to be a proud member of the FPWS. It is unfortunate that I no longer feel the same way following my recent experience with the FPWS Disciplinary Panel, who had they arrived at a sensible decision based on their actual Code of Conduct and actual events, I would have accepted it.
Considering that the Professional Standards is headed up Mr Stuart Frame a barrister of Staple Inn Chambers (at the time of writing) I find it quite disconcerting, and absurd, that as a member you can be found guilty of ‘nearly doing something wrong’. In essence, if you make a mistake in a draft award then the Disciplinary Panel may find you guilty even if you correct the error before serving the Award- on this basis every member of the FPWS must be guilty!
I resigned my membership as I feel the Faculty has fallen well short on its standards; basing their decisions on falsified evidence and the evidence of a surveyor who claimed that I did not understand what I was doing, my ex parte Award was wrongly made etc.etc. however, in the County Court before the judge David Turner admitted that the ex parte Award was valid. On this admission he is admitting that the grounds put forward by me for proceeding ex parte were valid, that my actions were correct and that his claims in the raising of complaints against me were unfounded. That does not matter though if you are the Disciplinary Panel of FPWS, headed by Mr Stuart Frame.
Is the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors Disciplinary Panel fit for purpose? (link to further comments)
A complaint was made against me by the adjoining owner’s surveyor, not either of the owners! It is unfortunate that the FPWS Disciplinary Panel headed up by Mr Stuart Frame, formerly of Staple Inn Chambers, a barrister specialising in party wall matters upheld this complaint against me which was raised by Mr David Turner MRICS C.Build E FCABE FFPWS ACIArb, Chartered Building Surveyor, RICS Accredited Expert Witness and Party Wall Consultant of 7 Spooners Dr., Park Street, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, AL22HX. This was despite the fact that it was contrary to a recent decision by HHJ Bailey in which Stuart Frame - who heads up the Professional Standards of the FPWS, was counsel for the claimants.
I have apologised on this website to Mr Stuart Frame for associating him with the (his?) Panel’s decision, he found such association both derogatory and false. It actually stated that ‘he must have agreed with their decision’ and Mr Frame claimed this to be derogatory and false! Bearing in mind that Mr Stuart Frame is in charge of the Disciplinary Panel and yet he neither agrees nor disagrees with their decision, which I find rather odd as it is his department and he has washed his hands of the matter. Well, who would want to be associated with it? Does Mr Frame have any respect for the Disciplinary Panel? What does that say about Mr Stuart Frame head of Professional Standards?
Guilty of nearly doing something - You will find an outline of what happened on this link.
Depending upon who you are, if you do not supply a written copy of your CHP then the Faculty Disciplinary Panel state (if you are Lee Kyson)
In conclusion the panel consider that Mr. Kyson is in breach of Rule 19 of the Code of Conduct.
In respect of complaint 5, the disciplinary panel do not consider this matter to be so serious as to warrant suspension from the Faculty, but it does consider the matter to be conduct in breach of Rule 19 of the Code of Conduct to warrant disciplinary action by reprimand.
However, if you are Alex Frame, yes you’ve noticed Alex Frame is actually Stuart Frame’s father! and exactly the same complaint has been raised then following applies:-
In addition LK had made a complaint that the surveyors refused to forward their CHP. The Disciplinary Panel confirmed that regarding complaint (item 7 LK letter) the FPWS Disciplinary Panel do not consider that there has been a breach of Rule 19 that merits consideration
I had in fact supplied David Turner with a CHP but the DP decided
Mr. Turner asked Mr. Kyson for a copy of his Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP). Mr. Kyson did not refuse to provide a CHP and asked for the complaint to be referred to him in the first instance, which the panel confirms is in accordance with the Faculty Code of Conduct Rule 19. However, the panel consider that for a person making complaint to understand what the complaint procedure is, it is implicit that they would receive a copy of the CHP. When specifically asked for a copy Mr. Kyson did not do this. Whilst it is not explicit in the Faculty's Code of Conduct that a CHP procedure must be provided in writing, the panel consider it is implicit.
However, Mr Alex Frame did not supply any form of CHP.
Earlier this year I resigned my position as a committee member from the North London Forum due to my dissatisfaction with some elements of the Faculty, this was not dissatisfaction with the NLF branch, I hasten to add!, but with some other matters regarding the Faculty and I was going to resign my membership but was persuaded to renew it. I now realise it was an erroneous decision to renew. As stated above, I have since resigned but the FPWS are of the opinion that they will not accept my resignation. Albeit as of February 2019 this has finally been acknowledged.