🏛️ Review of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors Disciplinary Panel's Fitness for Purpose

As a surveyor who went through the disciplinary process of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors (FPWS), I concluded that the Disciplinary Panel was not fit for purpose. In my experience, the panel's decisions were inconsistent, legally questionable, and at times based on subjective interpretations rather than the established standards of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 and the FPWS's own Code of Conduct.

My concerns stemmed from a disciplinary hearing initiated by a complaint from a fellow member, Mr. David Turner. The complaints against me were upheld, resulting in sanctions, including an £800 payment. I believe the panel's findings were flawed and conflicted with both common law and accepted professional practice. I have not paid the £800.

👤 Apparent Disconnect at the Head of Professional Standards

A significant point of contention was the role of Mr. Stuart Frame, a barrister who, at the time, headed the FPWS Professional Standards.

When I suggested he would have agreed with the panel's decision, he informed me that he "played no part in the Disciplinary Panel’s decision" and knew "absolutely nothing about the substance of the matter." Yet, he subsequently stated that my reference was both "derogatory and false."

This created a puzzling paradox: the head of professional standards claimed no knowledge of the proceedings but was still familiar enough to condemn my commentary. This contradiction suggested a low threshold for professional standards, where leadership could disassociate itself from a panel's decisions while simultaneously defending the integrity of the process.

⚖️ The Panel's Legal and Technical Errors

The panel’s findings contradicted both case law and statutory interpretation of the Party Wall Act.

❌ Contradiction on Third Surveyor Naming:
A primary finding against me was that the "incorrect naming of the third surveyor could have rendered the entire process and the award invalid." However, I had corrected the error before the award was served. The panel therefore punished a hypothetical mistake that was already remedied.

This directly clashed with the case of Tracey Reeves v Young & Antino, where HHJ Bailey, agreeing with a submission by Mr. Stuart Frame himself, ruled that recitals (where a third surveyor’s name appears) are "not part of the award." How then could the panel impose sanctions based on something the courts had already deemed legally irrelevant?

📧 Misinterpretation of "Effective" Action:
The panel also found I acted improperly ex parte, arguing that because Mr. Turner had sent four emails, he had “actively sought to engage.” But the Act (Section 10) requires the other surveyor to act effectively, not merely send correspondence. If communication is unhelpful or obstructive, it cannot be classed as effective engagement.

Indeed, the ex parte award was never appealed, and Mr. Turner later confirmed its validity in County Court. This further demonstrates that my decision was in accordance with the law, while the panel’s interpretation was strained and ungrounded.

📜 The Code of Conduct and a Bizarre Rationale

The panel’s application of the FPWS Code of Conduct was equally flawed.

Rule 19 – Complaints Handling:
The panel alleged I breached Rule 19 by failing to provide a Complaints Handling Process (CHP). Yet, I had explained my process in writing: first submit the complaint to me, and if unresolved, escalate to FPWS. This is exactly what the rule requires.

Despite acknowledging that my response was “in accordance with Rule 19,” the panel still found me guilty on the grounds that the Code “does not explicitly” state the CHP must be in writing but that they “consider it implicit.” In other words, they invented a new requirement and then penalised me for failing to meet it.

Such reasoning demonstrates a troubling approach: rather than upholding published rules, the panel appeared willing to reinterpret or create rules on the spot to justify sanctions.

🔍 Conclusion

My disciplinary case revealed a process that was procedurally unsound, legally inconsistent, and professionally questionable.

The panel penalised members on the basis of what could have been, rather than actual breaches.
It disregarded clear case law, including decisions previously argued by its own head of professional standards.
It relied on “implicit” interpretations of rules, effectively rewriting the Code of Conduct during deliberations.

The sanctions against me, including the demand for £800, were not the outcome of a reasoned process but of a flawed disciplinary culture. In my view, the FPWS Disciplinary Panel was incapable of delivering fair, evidence-based, and legally consistent decisions—and therefore cannot be regarded as fit for purpose.

Linked articles to above:

FPWS Disciplinary Process: A Review of Transparency, Fairness, and Impartiality

W hy I Resigned from the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors (FPWS)