Should the RICS be stripped of its Royal Charter?
This is the subject of a conversation on the Linked In group, which often makes for some interesting reading.
Has the RICS moved so far away from its original purpose set out under the Charter that it should no longer be worthy of such an honour, asks one member.
Another suggests a mass complaint to the Privy Council – the body responsible for Royal Charters.
And what about the RICS’s own disaffected members?
The Royal Charter, by the way, requires the RICS among other things to “maintain and promote the usefulness of the profession for the public advantage in the United Kingdom and in any other part of the world”.
But does Joe Public begin to understand what a surveyor does? If his roof leaks, does he call in an RICS member or someone who specialises in flat roofs?
Anyway, it’s an interesting discussion – and no doubt NFoPP counts itself lucky that a Royal Charter is one issue it doesn’t have to worry about.
https://tinyurl.com/mcajrcq
.png)
%20(002).png)
Comments
@Jay I was a former FNAEA what you write is correct. It is a great shame that good things come to an abrupt end with the white sock brigade.
Well said John, your words will be ringing loud and true in so many ears. What you are experiencing now is what NAEA members had to endure once NAEA got stuck with NFoPP. It is a pity those in a position to do something are the ones creating to problem.
I can guaranteee worse is to come, experienced members like you are the last thing they want. Young, impressionable and comliant is what they are after, you will be hounded out like so many FNAEA's were.
I have recently attended the Agricultural conference which I suspect is the RICS at its best as I am somewhat disenchanted with the many changes that have taken place at the Institution since I became a probationer and then qualified more than half a century ago.
Then, only about a third of examinees passed, with a lesser amount first time, the exams were difficult and a genuine test and one sensed one was joining an elite, professional establishment with the very highest standards.
The Institutional staff were exceptionally courteous and there to help members. Currently, with the odd exception, one finds that they are more interested in 'policing', extracting substantial subscriptions and somewhat less there to help. The innate desire to enlarge the membership seems to be out of control and to the detriment of the whole.
The former branch structure ensured that one knew members of similar interests, met semi-socially at inexpensive local professional meetings, which ensured better professional behaviour and genuine contact without self-promotion to another member's clients.
For the first time I have been obliged recently to report another member for acting beyond his area of knowledge, to the detriment of the client, but the Institution department considered no action should be taken.
Thank you for opening up this discussion here Ros; the RICS Linked in group is quite heavily pre moderated. A bit like North Korea, only the comments that don't rattle the cage too much get published, despite it seemingly being an open forum, it isn't.
They very thread you have picked out is one of a series where a largely disenfranchised RICS membership are protesting at what is happening at Great George Street; a lot of the discontentment exactly mirrors the sentiment that saw significant membership resignation from NFoPP in recent years.
I have a lot of Surveyor mates, none of them, in any of area of practice, feel connected to the Institute. MRICS, FRICS are seen as a qualification rather than a badge of belonging, in much the same way as no-one mentions their BA is from whichever Uni or Poly. Surveyors are surveyors and most would defect elsewhere if there were somewhere to defect to. Particularly at the end of their career, most surveyors find carrying 6 years liability cover against litigation a severe financial burden.
One only has to look under the skin of RICS to see that not all is well; Along with TPO, Shelter and Which, RICS are banging the Rogue agent drum loud enough for their neighbours just across Parliament Square to hear, seemingly painting any Agent not of RICS as Rogue and not to be trusted. That is nothing more than an attempt at old fashioned ‘establishment’ manipulation of competition.
If RICS were truly interested in "maintaining and promoting the usefulness of the profession for the public advantage in the United Kingdom and in any other part of the world" they would not so often and effectively condone wrongdoing by their members; A casual trawl through the RICS disciplinary hearings on their website will show an unhealthy control of their members. Probably best demonstrated by one member sanctioned for not completing a CPD return receiving the same fine as firms who temporarily ‘borrow' from the Client account.
The RICS can not have it both ways , they can't be the pillars of best practice when they are lobbying for regulation of the Industry to control competition but in practice are arguably fairly actively up to all sorts of tricks that would have them whistling up the hangman for non-members.
All that said it is fitting for a Gentleman’s Club in London to have a prestigious name so from that point of view the Royal Charter should remain, however from any meaningful indication of best practice and qualification well that really is up for debate. Perhaps if those that transgressed the code of conduct were more appropriately sanctioned there probably is good reason for the Charter.