Having served on several APC panels, both in the capacity of sales and lettings specialist and of general assessor, I would draw the attention of candidates and supervisors, with APC doctors, to the following points of concern that were born out of the interviews which I conducted. These comments are personal and intended as a general guide rather than reflecting specific criticism at any particular candidate: furthermore, they do not form part of any official RICS guide. I would also point out that some of the remarks are equally applicable in some respects to candidates who were deemed competent under the assessors’ guidelines as well as those who were referred.
As with any form of professional assessment, the guidelines produced by the RICS have to cover a wide range of skills and experiences to ensure a consistent level of assessment of a candidate’s suitability, notwithstanding the broad range of tasks which candidates have an opportunity to undertake in the course of their employment. Despite relative clarity in the published guides to concerned parties, the standard of material used in the candidates’ oral presentation element of the assessment was quite varied and, in this respect, the candidate should bear in mind the basic elements of a presentation to individuals regarding property matters within an office environment at a neutral location. That is to say, material to illustrate the property(ies) concerned is always of assistance, the rule of thumb being “a picture is worth 1,000 words”.
A further point is that candidates must ensure that, as per the guidelines, they compile three separate case-study reports which, for ease of assessment, should be readily distinguishable in the candidate’s final report from general information relating to the type of experience achieved by the candidate with the employer.
The candidate should be well aware that questions will be asked by the panel with regard to the case study chosen for presentation and, in this respect, the candidate should bear in mind that the objective of the panel at this stage is to explore and ascertain that the case study chosen for presentation is the candidate’s own work and that the candidate had a thorough understanding of all actual and possible implications arising out of the scenario chosen and fully understands his/her actions and the consequences thereof.
Some candidates chose case studies involving unusual or crucial elements without being able to justify fully their courses of action or the implications of alternatives. Explanation of the issues contained in the presentation case study gives a better indication of competence than mere description.
While most candidates appear to haveadequately fulfilled the range of experience required by the assessment stage, having regard to their diary and log book submissions, basic questions on a broad range of professional property matters were problematic. The candidate must realise, as indicated in the published guidelines, that he/she is being assessed as a potential qualified chartered surveyor able to set up his/her own practice and offer advice and guidance to clients.
As has been continually stressed, while some property matters will be outside the scope of work experienced by the candidate, he/she should be aware of the broad principles of, say, compulsory purchase, rating, planning etc.Furthermore, several candidates appeared not to grasp the requirement for an agency surveyor to be conversant with landlord and tenant legislation and case law affecting, for example, assignment. However, although most were aware of recent legislation in the field of agency, a broad view must be taken at all times as the effects on property valuation and appraisal of an increasing range of legislative and socio-economic factors must be appreciated.
Valuations in general are an area where candidates must be aware of the techniques used, ie DCF, term and reversion etc. The incorporation into valuation methods of an assessment of risk in the form of yields and the factors taken into consideration were inadequately explained in some cases, yet must surely be a fundamental aspect to the role of the general practitioner.
I would stress that every year, without fail, assessors’ reports criticise candidates’ grammar, spelling and written presentations. Despite the use of pro forma in some situations, the majority of the general practitioners’ work will be via the medium of a written report and correspondence. Spelling, grammar and layout must not be overlooked, particularly in these ultra-competitive times when a client may have invited several firms to submit advice/proposals when allocating instructions. Candidates should be well aware of the written task element of the assessment and should study the topics list thoroughly beforehand. An understanding of the differences between a report, essay and letter is a prerequisite.
Finally, I would conclude by stating that the physical appearance of candidates has been exceptionally professional and the level of understanding and appreciation of the code of conduct and ethics has been reassuringly displayed to a high degree by the majority. I feel sure that, with an increased appreciation of the relevance of keeping abreast of legislation and case law, as well as adopting a broader view of the tasks undertaken, many more candidates will satisfy the RICS’ requirements and achieve professional associate status.
Mark S Heane BSc ARICS graduated from Leicester Polytechnic (now DeMontfort University) and has since worked in both private practice and local government.