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

By Lee Kyson – Independent Reviewer

⚠️ Warning to FPWS members: This review details a disciplinary case that raises questions about the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors' (FPWS) processes and could affect any member.

I was recently asked to review the disciplinary proceedings and documents issued by the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors (FPWS) in the case of member X. This review, based on, what was, publicly available correspondence, the official disciplinary determination, and the FPWS Code of Conduct, IMHO highlights significant concerns regarding the organization's transparency, impartiality, and financial practices.

📋 Charges and Panel Findings

The FPWS Disciplinary Panel reviewed five charges against Mr. X upholding four of them:

  • 📌 Breach of Rule 5.1 (Service Standards): Producing an unfit party wall award.

  • 📌 Breach of Rule 5.1 (Service Standards): Relying on a complaints handling procedure (CHP) that lacked an effective independent redress mechanism and did not provide key details.

  • 📌 Breach of Rule 5.1 (Service Standards): Failing to substantively respond to a complaint.

  • 📌 Breach of Rule 7 (Cooperation): Failing to respond to the Faculty's inquiries and requests for documents.

One charge—failing to provide the complaints procedure on request—was not upheld. Despite this, the panel imposed a sanction of £5,284.00, which was described as a payment to "contribute towards, but not exceeding, the costs of the investigation and disciplinary process".

💰 Ambiguity and Lack of Justification for Costs

Initially, the FPWS refused to provide a breakdown of the £5,284.00 cost, stating that it was a non-negotiable sanction. However, in a later letter, they contradicted themselves by providing a detailed breakdown while still calling the amount "non-negotiable". The breakdown revealed the following payments:

  • 💼 HH Edward Bailey (Panel Chair): £2,500.00

  • ⚖️ Lisa Clarke (Barrister): £2,354.00 is Ms Clarke a District Judge as of 2nd January 2024?

  • 👥 Two Panel Members (Chris Cook and Mike Harry): £360.00 total

This raises a crucial question: Was it necessary to engage a barrister for an investigation and hearing chaired by a retired judge with relevant expertise? The significant fees paid to both the barrister and the panel chair point to a potentially disproportionate use of resources, which the member was then forced to pay for.

⚠️ Questions of Impartiality and Consistency

The disciplinary panel's chair, HH Edward Bailey, is described as an "independent" member. However, public records show that he is an officer of the Party Wall Mediation Scheme LLP, an organization over which the FPWS exercises significant control, as both entities share the same registered address. This close relationship raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest and undermines the claim of full independence.

Furthermore, a comparative review of other disciplinary cases involving senior FPWS figures has not resulted in similar public sanctions or cost impositions, suggesting a potential for inconsistent and unequal application of the organization’s disciplinary rules.

📜 Procedural Concerns

📅 Application of the Wrong Code of Conduct?

The panel's decision was based on the 2020 Code of Conduct, despite the party wall award in question being issued in 2018. No evidence was presented that Mr. X had been formally notified of or agreed to be bound by the newer code. This retroactive application of professional standards is a significant procedural flaw that raises questions about the fairness of the process.

🔍 Lack of Transparency and Accountability

The FPWS's actions—initially refusing to provide a cost breakdown, using ambiguous language to describe the financial sanction, and demanding payment in a manner akin to a debt collection notice—demonstrate a lack of transparency. For a professional body to maintain credibility, its disciplinary processes must be procedurally sound and financially transparent, ensuring they are above reproach.

✅ Conclusion

This review highlights serious concerns about the FPWS's disciplinary procedures, including:

  • ❓ Ambiguity in financial sanctions and cost justifications.

  • ⚖️ Potential conflicts of interest due to the chair's association with another FPWS-controlled organization.

  • 📅 The questionable and retroactive application of professional standards.

  • 🔍 A general lack of procedural transparency.

Professional bodies have a duty to uphold the highest standards, not only for their members but also for their own processes. The FPWS must address these shortcomings to maintain trust and credibility within the surveying community.

Linked articles to above:

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

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