Mr Adam Andrews MARLA

A Disciplinary Tribunal of Propertymark Limited was convened on 31 January 2024 to consider the case against Mr Adam Andrews.

The panel members were Mr Richard Hair PPNAEA (Honoured) (Retd) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal); Ms Jacqueline Stone FNAEA (member panellist); and Mr Clive Wood (lay panellist).

The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Ali Haider. Mr Andrews did not attend the Hearing. Mr Raul Palmero and Mrs Vanesa Palmero, the complainants, attended the Hearing online via Zoom.


The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Andrews.

It was alleged that Mr Andrews had acted in contravention of the requirements of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules.

  • Conduct Rule 13: General duty to uphold high standards of ethical and professional behaviour
  • Conduct Rule 23: Continuing Professional Development (CPD)


In the absence of Mr Andrews, Mr David Oliver, Propertymark Compliance Manager, entered a plea denying the alleged breaches of Rules 13 and 23.

After consideration of the evidence presented and submissions by the parties, the Tribunal announced the following findings:

  • Conduct Rule 13: Proven
  • Conduct Rule 23: Proven


  • Conduct Rule 13: £750
  • Conduct Rule 23: £250

In addition, the costs of this Hearing of £454 were imposed against Mr Andrews in favour of Propertymark.

Closing Statement

The Tribunal made the following statement:

'This case has raised a number of issues with regard to our member’s duty to uphold high standards of professional behaviour. We note that an apology has been offered to the complainants, with an acceptance that lessons had been learned. However, the Tribunal noted many failings, including lack of clarity with regard to terms of instruction, failure to provide a complaints procedure and serious invoice irregularities. We also note a complete lack of continuing professional development.'

Download the full report

The downloadable report shows the full details of the rules involved in this case.