The Appeal Panel members were Mr Jim Atkins PPNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal); Ms Jacqueline Stone FNAEA (member panellist); and Mrs Suzanne Smith (lay panellist).
The Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Victor Zillmer. Mr Nicholas Rorison did not attend the Appeal Hearing online or in person.
The Hearing took place in private and was recorded.
Allegations
The Tribunal considered the allegations set out in the case summary sent to Mr Rorison.
It was alleged that Mr Rorison had acted in contravention of the requirements of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules:
- Conduct rule 1.44: Donation of dormant funds to charity
- Conduct rule 23: Continuing professional development (CPD) rules
Decision
Mr Rorison entered a plea denying the alleged breaches of Rule 1.44 and 23.
After consideration of the evidence presented and submissions by the parties, the Tribunal announced the following findings:
- Conduct rule 1.44: Proven
- Conduct rule 23: Proven
Sanctions
- Conduct rule 1.44: Caution
- Conduct rule 23: £50
In addition, the cost of this hearing of £517.50 were imposed against Mr Rorison in favour of Propertymark.
Closing Statement
The Tribunal made the following statement:
'We believe this matter should never have progressed beyond the original offer of a small penalty, but we thank the member for your attendance.'
The Appeal Panel members were Mr Jim Atkins PPNAEA (Honoured) (member panellist acting as the Chairperson for the Tribunal); Ms Jacqueline Stone FNAEA (member panellist); and Mrs Suzanne Smith (lay panellist).
The Case Officer for Propertymark was Mr Victor Zillmer. Mr Nicholas Rorison did not attend the Appeal Hearing online or in person.
The Hearing took place in private and was recorded.
Original hearing findings and sanctions
Mr Nicholas Rorison was found to have acted in breach of the following Propertymark Conduct and Membership Rules at the hearing held on 20 November 2024 and the penalties imposed were:
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.44 | Proven | Caution |
| Rule 23 | Proven | £50 |
The sum of £517.50 was imposed on the member towards the costs of the hearing.
Appeal tribunal's decision
After considering the evidence, Mr Nicholas Rorison submission and after deliberation, the Appeal Tribunal made the following statement of findings:
'Having read the evidence of the earlier Tribunal and considered the further representation of the appeal, we uphold the decision and penalty of the earlier Tribunal.
It is our opinion that the internal sanction originally proposed was appropriate.
In addition to the cost previous imposed of £517.50, we impose further cost towards today’s hearing of £497.'
Decision summary
| Alleged breach | Findings | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.44 | Proven | Caution |
| Rule 23 | Proven | £50 |
Additional costs of £497 for the Appeal Hearing were imposed on Mr Nicholas Rorison 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.