By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


RICS governance crisis - Leading lawyer wants your views

The independent review into the governance of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is calling for comments.

Earlier this year RICS was the subject of allegations, chiefly in the Sunday Times, about apparent failures by RICS senior figures to act on a report by accountancy firm BDO.

This report said that two years ago RICS was at risk of “unidentified fraud, misappropriation of funds and misreporting of financial performance.” 


BDO’s report gave the lowest possible 'no assurance' rating for the effectiveness of RICS’ financial controls. 

The newspaper allegations also claimed that four RICS non-executive directors who wanted the organisation to act on the report’s concerns had their appointments terminated.

Shortly afterwards RICS made some 140 people redundant while Sean Tompkins - chief executive of RICS since 2010 - was paid £510,000 including £250,000 in bonuses.

Now an independent review is being led by a senior barrister, Alison Levitt QC. 

She is now issuing a call for evidence and says she is particularly keen to hear from current and former members of RICS, current and former directors and offficers, journalists, and others with an interest in the governance of RICS.

The call for evidence includes these paragraphs:  “To make it easy for people to contact Ms Levitt QC and tell her their views, the Review has set up a secure and confidential email address at contact@LevittQCIndependentReview.co.uk

“RICS does not have access to the email address and they will not be given any of the material, which is stored on a confidential platform. It is possible for people to respond to the Review anonymously. 

“Evidence should be submitted by Wednesday 19th May. Ms Levitt QC is aiming to provide her report by mid-June.” 

  • Andrew Stanton PROPTECH-PR A Consultancy for Proptech Founders

    A very enlightened approach by the QC, perhaps a shame she was not first into bat. Is this the start of a more open method of finding the 'truth'? Is there an explanation why the original investigator moved aside?


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up