The panel members were Mr Neville Pedersen FNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal); Mr Steve Shaw (lay panellist); and Mr George Close (lay panellist).
The presenting Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Ali Haider. Mr Arif was in attendance at the hearing.
The hearing took place in private and was recorded.
Allegations
The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Arif.
It was alleged that Mr Arif 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 1.14: Payments out 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 13: General duty to uphold high standards of ethical and professional behaviour
- Conduct rule 23: Continuing professional development (CPD) rules
Decision
Mr Arif entered a plea admitting the alleged breaches of Rules 1.7, 1.14 and 13 but denied the breaches in relation to Rules 1.18, 1.19, 120 and 23.
After consideration of the evidence presented and submissions by the parties, the Tribunal announced the following findings:
- Conduct rule 1.7: Admitted
- Conduct rule 1.14: Admitted
- Conduct rule 1.18: Not proven
- Conduct rule 1.19: Not proven
- Conduct rule 1.20: Not proven
- Conduct rule 13: Admitted
- Conduct rule 23: Proven
Sanctions
- Conduct rule 1.7, 1.14, 13: £2,500
- Conduct rule 23: Formal warning
In addition, the costs of this Hearing of £407.60 were imposed against Mr Arif in favour of Propertymark.
Closing Statement
The Tribunal made the following statement:
'The Tribunal thanks Mr Arif for his attendance at today’s Hearing which has assisted the Tribunal in their deliberations. Using clients’ monies for the running of the business is a breach of one of the most fundamental Rules of this Association. It is a breach of trust that the public puts in the procession which then reflect very badly on the profession and on Propertymark. Mr Arif’s membership was terminated in June 2024'
The Appeal Panel members were Mrs. Carol Brady MBE (lay panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal), Mr Richard Hair PPNAEA (Honoured)(Retd) (member panellist); and Noel Hunter OBE (lay panellist).
The Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Ali Haider. Mr Arif was not in attendance at the Hearing.
The Hearing took place in private and was recorded.
Original hearing findings and sanctions
Mr Arif was found to have acted in breach of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules at the Hearing held on 27 February 2025 and the penalties imposed were:
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.7, 1.14, 13 | Admitted | £2,500 |
| Rule 23 | Proven | Formal warning |
A sum of £407.60 was imposed on Mr Arif towards the costs of the Hearing.
Appeal Tribunal's Decision
After considering the evidence and after deliberation, the Appeal Tribunal made the following statement of findings:
'The Panel have considered the grounds of Mr Arif’s Appeal, and in the absence of any evidence from Mr Arif and given the serious nature of the admitted breaches, we have found the Appeal not proven and not upheld. I should also state that we have also considered the sanctions that were originally applied, and we have found no reasons to change those. To further add in the Appeal from Mr Arif that costs will be awarded of £515 in favour of Propertymark.'
Decision summary
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.7, 1.14, 13 | Admitted | £2,500 |
| Rule 23 | Proven | Formal warning |
In addition to the costs of £407.60 imposed against Mr Arif at the original Hearing, £515 was also awarded in costs of the Appeal Hearing in favour of Propertymark.
Download the full reports
The downloadable report sets out the full details of the rules involved in this case. For appealed cases, the original hearing report appears first, followed by the appeal decision.