The panel members were Mr Neville Pedersen FNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal), Mr George Close (lay panellist) Mr Steven Shaw (lay panellist).
The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Victor Zillmer.
Mr David Noyes and Miss Tifaine Noyes did not attend the hearing; this still took place and was recorded.
Allegations
The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Noyes and Miss Noyes.
It was alleged that both Mr Noyes and Miss Noyes had acted in contravention of the requirements of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules.
- Conduct Rule 1.7: Access to, or availability of Client Money
- Conduct Rule 1.8: Client Money from members’ properties
- Conduct Rule 1.9: Title and conditions of a Client (Bank) Account
- Conduct Rule 1.11: Clients’ Money does not include
- Conduct Rule 1.13: Payments into a Client (Bank) Account
- Conduct Rule 1.14: Payments out of a Client (Bank) Account
- Conduct Rule 1.23: Reconciliation(s) – format and frequency
- Conduct Rule 1.38: Duty to co-operate and provide information/records
- Conduct Rule 13: General duty to uphold high standards of ethical and professional behaviour
- Conduct Rule 14: Duty to assist in disciplinary proceedings
Decisions
Mrs Nikki Tucker, Compliance Administration Team Leader, entered a plea denying all alleged breaches on behalf of Mr David Noyes and Miss Tifaine Noyes.
After consideration of the evidence presented and submissions by the parties, the Tribunal announced the following findings:
- Conduct Rule 1.7: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.8: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.9: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.11: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.13: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.14: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.23: Proven
- Conduct Rule 1.38: Proven
- Conduct Rule 13: Proven
- Conduct Rule 14: Proven
Sanctions
- Conduct Rules 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.11, 1.13, 1.14, 1.23 and 1.38: £3,500
- Conduct Rule 13: £750
- Conduct Rule 14: £750
In addition, the costs of the hearing of £407.60 were imposed against Mr Noyes and Miss Noyes in favour of Propertymark.
Closing Statement
The Tribunal made the following statement:
'The Tribunal is disappointed that neither Mr or Miss Noyes were in attendance, and the lack of cooperation given during disciplinary procedures was minimal.
The fundamental issues were the handling of client monies, along with ringfencing monies as appropriate and comingling monies which should not have been within the client account.
We note that both Mr and Miss Noyes have resigned their membership of Propertymark.'
Download the full report
The downloadable report shows the full details of the rules involved in this case.
