RICS asks surveyor to take down allegations against it

A surveyor has been asked to remove complaints about the RICS from his website and from social media.

Martin Rushton has in the past accused the RICS of censorship, corruption and breaching his human rights.

In 2013, there was a three-day appeal against a decision of an RICS disciplinary panel the year before.

He had been charged with not conducting himself in a manner befitting membership of the RICS in creating a website; and using the website to bring the RICS into disrepute.

The appeal was upheld on the ground relating to his right to freedom of expression, and it was directed that Rushton be re-admitted to RICS membership.

That, however, was not the end of the matter, and last week the RICS issued this statement:

“Over the past four years, Martin Rushton MRICS has made repeated complaints against office holders of the Institution and members of the executive. His complaints have included allegations of corruption and fraud.

“In 2015, RICS Governing Council took the unprecedented step of commissioning an investigation into these allegations.

“A review was conducted by the Chairman of the Management Board and two independent non-executives of RICS, one of which was the Chairman of the Audit Committee.

“The review group found there was no evidence to support the allegations. A report from the group was presented to Governing Council who have accepted the findings.

“Mr Rushton has been informed of the outcome of the review and asked to remove references to these allegations from his website and to desist from repeating the allegations in social media.”

At the weekend, the website looked to be still up, along with comments on Twitter.

x

Email the story to a friend

11 Comments

  1. Ewan Foreman

    If I were Martin Rushton I am not sure I would be entirely consoled by “A review conducted by the Chairman of the Management Board and two independent non-executives of RICS”. No organisation is above and beyond fully external scrutiny. There is a bit more info on the case here:

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sham-independence-rics-regulation-department-martin-rushton

    Report
    1. PeeBee

      Makes for ‘interesting’ reading.

      Report
      1. msr@surveyorsinfrance.com

        What is even more interesting PeeBee is that the RICS’ published statement is a half-truth statement missing out key details such as…

        The appeal hearing panel found I had NOT breached any RICS rules or bye-laws AND…

        The RICS illegally punished me for publishing for STATEMENTS OF FACT about RICS, its Regulation Department etc and the appeal panel found this punishment was illegal because it failed to respect my Common Law and Statutory [and Contractual] right to Freedom of Expression (see Article 10 of the Human Rights Act).

        The appeal panel assertained I had published STATEMENTS OF FACT from RICS’ and Regulation’s own records.  Furthermore RICS, Regulation and the disciplinary hearing panel members knew this from the very outset of their involvement.

        RICS actually instigated the disciplinary process by falsely accusing me of libel and instructing its Regulation Department to commence a disciplinary investigation.

        It is a well established principle of Regulatory Law that Regulatory Authorities lack any remit/authority to accept and act upon allegations of libel unless corroborated by a Court Judgement.

        Even five year old children understand telling the truth in circumstances such as my case should not be punished!

        During the disciplinary hearing the RICS staff solicitor stated I had published information which portrayed the Regulation Department’s independence from RICS as a sham, and the appeal panel stated I had published statements of fact…says it all really.

        In the disciplinary verdict it was basically stated RICS is so cosmically important, no professional member of RICS may ever publish anything which could damage RICS’ reputation. Dysfunctional or what!

        Laughably the RICS staff solicitor also claimed RICS had no understanding of the relevance of the right to Freedom of Expression to the case…ROFL.

        It cost me in excess of €70,000 to have RICS respect the Law and its contractual obligations. What RICS spent in trying to silence me one can only guess at.

        Meantime RICS claims it simply acted in ‘good faith’.

        No wonder RICS wants to issue such half-truth statements. LOL

        http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rics-posts-critique-me-martin-rushton?trk=mp-author-card

         

        Report
    2. msr@surveyorsinfrance.com

      I am Martin RUSHTON, and can assure you I am not!

      Report
  2. Eric Walker

    “Martin Rushton has in the past accused the RICS of censorship” – RICS response “Mr Rushton has been informed of the outcome … and asked to remove references to these allegations”.  Anyone else notice something ironic here? 😉 

    Report
    1. msr@surveyorsinfrance.com

      Indeed Eric; It is a matter of record RICS has been found culpable of failing to respect my right to Freedom of Expression; but of course the dysfunctional nature of the organisation is it actually thinks it can excuse itself by claiming such failing is acting in ‘good faith.

      Report
  3. Philip61

    Hi perhaps seth blatter should apply for a job there

    he would certainly be at home

    How can any organisation truly hope to have its members and the publics confidence when it is acting with such a  clear conflict of interest

     

    I am disappointed to say that I am a RICS member it is nothing like the way it used to be run with fairness and credibility

    Report
    1. msr@surveyorsinfrance.com

      Spot on Philip.  The organisation is dysfunctional. It is now a commercial brand name not a learned institution, and we all know what comes with big business mentality brand name mentality.

      It is time RICS reverted back to being a UK Institution for UK qualified members acting in the interests of the UK public; and not this hair-brained Global Force that it delsuionally thinks it is.

      Report
  4. Telboy32

    I have followed this case with interest.

    The RICS has in the past (in 2011) made allegations against Mr Rushton accusing him of libel and based on those allegation the RICS disciplined Mr Rushton by expelling him in a disciplinary verdict. The RICS has removed all trace of this verdict from its website, but I have received a copy of the verdict and can say with certainty it is full of absurd statements and unbelievable interpretations of the law.

    But RICS was forced to reverse that vedict because he was found to have published the truth (this was by an appeal panel).

    If that appeal panel had not reversed the decsion the RICS would have ended up in the High Court for human rights abuse and breach of contract, and I think there is little doubt the RICS would be humiliated and have to pay big damages (I understand Mr Rushton is too unwell to take the RICS toCourt at present).

    The appeal panel said Mr Rushton had the right to publish the truth about the RICS. The panel ascertained this from records of the RICS dating back to 2009. To punish a person in suchcircumstance (for publishing the truth) is like going back to the Middle Ages.

    He had been charged with not conducting himself in a manner befitting membership of the RICS in creating a website; and using the website to bring the RICS into disrepute.

    But the appeal panel also said Mr Rushton had certainly not conducted himself in a manner unbefitting of the RICS nor had he brought the RICS into disrepute.

    It was ridiculous for the RICS to claim Mr Rushton publishing facts about how people within the RICS behave brings the RICS into disrepute.  It is the way those RICS people behaved which did that.

    The fact that the RICS is now trying to discredit Mr Rushton by publishing its sillystatement is a joke.

    I urge everyone to Google “Martin Rushton RICS” and read about how the RICS carries on.

    Report
    1. msr@surveyorsinfrance.com

      Telboy 32

      Thanks for the comments.

      If I have been making allegations for some 4 years, whay have the clowns in the RICS not commenced a legal action for libel?

      The RICS is dysfunctional. It maliciously abused the RICS disciplinary process against me to try and silence me.

      RICS knowingly lied to instigate it.  It nefarious Regulation Department engaged the process knowing there it lacked any justifiable grounds to do so, and it did this for the calculated, improper purpose of seeking to destroy my right to freedom of expression and to punish me for having exercised that right.

      Every key decision maker in RICS, from the Chief Executive Sean TOMPKINS downwards knows RICS wilfully acted illegally and they are all doing everyhting they can to cover it up.

      Whilst the appeal panel overturned the verdict of the kangaroo court disciplinary panel, the appeal panel went on to ludicrously claim RICS and its Regulaton Department lying and wilfully failing to respect RICS’ statutory and contractual obligations was good faith conduct.

      Such a claim of good faith can only be credible if it is accepted RICS employs/appoints people as Officers, Directors, Staff and disciplinary hearing panel members who not only lack the basic knowledge they need to undertake their roles, but also lack the wherewithall and intellect to be able to familiarise themselves with and understand pertinent law, rules and professional standards even when they are spoon fed with the information.

      The appeal panel’s claim was simply a cover up.

      Neither the disciplinary verdict nor the appeal decision can be found on RICS’ website.  This is becasue they are both full of false statements, fallacious reasoning and misapplied legal principles which even a five yer old would notice.  Search the http://www.rics.org website and try and find either.

      As for the review Rosalind RENSHAW reports about, the three clowns who did the review are workplace buddies of those who were involved in the corrupt abuse of process and those who are trying to cover it all up, and all their review constitutes is another layer of festering cover-up laid over the putrid pile already there.

      Report
  5. PastorJack36

    It seems you have also decided he is Vexatious…as he was reinstated it would appear that HE was correct and that his rights had been infringed .
    Reading this it seems a very biased piece in favour of the might of the RICS and not this one lone Surveyor

    Having paid the RICS over £15 000 in fees over the years I am a bit concerned

    Interesting too the number of downvotes against those supporting Mr Rushton but without the courage of their convictions to state the reasons why…

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Leave a reply

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.