The panel members were Mr Jim Atkins PPNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal); Mr Simon O'Brien MARLA, MNAEA (Comm), MNAEA, ANAVA (member panellist); and Mr Noel Hunter OBE (lay panellist).
The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Ali Haider. Mr Chambers did not attend the Hearing.
Allegations
The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Chambers.
It was alleged that Mr Chambers had acted in contravention of the requirements of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules.
- Conduct Rule 1.9: Title and conditions of a Client (bank) Account
- Conduct Rule 1.18: Record keeping
- Conduct Rule 1.19: Books of record
- Conduct Rule 1.20: Supporting documentation
- Conduct Rule 1.21: Preservation of records
- Conduct Rule 1.22: Computerised records
- Conduct Rule 1.23: Reconciliation(s) – format and frequency
- Conduct Rule 13: General duty to uphold high standards of ethical and professional behaviour
- Conduct Rule 23: Continuing professional development (CPD) rules
Decisions
In the absence of Mr Chambers, Mr David Oliver, Propertymark Compliance Manager, entered a plea denying the alleged breaches of Rules 1.9, 1.18, 1.19. 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 23 and 13.
After consideration of the evidence presented and submissions by the parties, the Tribunal announced the following findings:
- Conduct Rule 1.9: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.18: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.19: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.20: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.21: Not proven
- Conduct Rule 1.22: Not proven
- Conduct Rule 1.23: Proven
- Conduct Rule 13: Proven
- Conduct Rule 23: Proven
Sanctions
- Conduct Rule 1.9: £750
- Conduct Rule 1.18: £750
- Conduct Rule 1.19: £750
- Conduct Rule 1.20: £750
- Conduct Rule 1.23: £1250
- Conduct Rule 13: £250
- Conduct Rule 23: £750
Additionally, the costs of this Hearing of £412.70 were imposed against Mr Chambers in favour of Propertymark.
Closing Statement
The Tribunal made the following statement:
'We are disappointed that Mr Chambers was not in attendance of the Tribunal either in person or by Zoom today. The Tribunal had questions they would have asked of the member in relation to the correspondence.
Mr Chambers, these are serious offences the ultimate responsibility for which sits with you as a member and PPD of the firm. You have accepted that your client account has not been run as it should have been. Whilst the Lettings Partnership have given you a pass, their report still shows a discrepancy.
With regards to payments, you indicated that you are solely responsible for landlords’ payments. We would recommend that at least one other responsible person is appointed to assist when necessary.
There should be a nil balance on each property ledger within the recommended timeframe set by Propertymark. As you are aware bank charges should be covered by a separate current account in the same entity
In addition to the above sanctions, the Tribunal instructs Propertymark to carry out an audit of your client account at your cost within the next 12 months.'
The Appeal Panel members were Mr Neville Pedersen MARLA (Honoured), FNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Appeal Tribunal); Mr Edward Johnson MARLA (member panellist); and Mr Steven Shaw (lay panellist).
The Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Ali Haider. Mr Chambers attended the Appeal Hearing in person.
Original hearing findings and sanctions
Mr Chambers was found to have acted in breach of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules at the Hearing held on 15 November 2023 and the penalties imposed were:
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.9 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.18 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.19 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.20 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.21 | Proven | n/a |
| Rule 1.22 | Proven | n/a |
| Rule 1.23 | Proven | £1,250 |
| Rule 13 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 23 | Proven | £250 |
The sum of £412.70 was imposed on the member towards the costs of the Hearing.
Appeal tribunal's decision
After considering the evidence, Mr Chambers’ submission and after deliberation, the Appeal Tribunal made the following statement of findings:
'We thank Mr Chambers for attending today’s Appeal Hearing. Correct management of client monies is a core principle of this Association, and in this regard, Mr Chambers, your company has failed. As a result of your failure to have your lettings account shown as a client account, this has never been included in the Accountant’s report and has left both landlords and tenants’ monies at risk.
Having been a member for over 20 years, the constancy of the requirement and the failure to adhere has left us with the conclusion that the penalties as levied should stand. However, we do reduce the penalty for breach of Rule 23 to £100. In your submission, you made reference to lower penalties in other cases. All penalties are levied in context to the specific case heard indeed, some penalties have been levied are considerably more. We do however acknowledge that steps have been taken to rectify the situation and that CPD is now being done.'
Decision summary
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.9 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.18 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.19 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.20 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 1.21 | Proven | n/a |
| Rule 1.22 | Proven | n/a |
| Rule 1.23 | Proven | £1,250 |
| Rule 13 | Proven | £750 |
| Rule 23 | Proven | £100 |
In addition to the costs of the original Hearing of £412.70, a sum of £515 was also imposed on Mr Chambers towards the cost of this Appeal Hearing in favour of Propertymark
Download the full report
The downloadable report shows the full details of the rules involved in this case.
