Mock Interview Pack: Commercial Real Estate

Chair: "Good morning. I am the chairperson, and my colleague is the technical assessor. Before we start, please show us a full scan of the room. Thank you. You have ten minutes to present your case study. Please keep to time. Begin when you are ready."

[MODEL PRESENTATION SHAPE] Cover, in this order:

• The instruction: who instructed you, the purpose (secured lending), the basis of value (Market Value), the interest valued, and the valuation date.
• The asset: a multi-let office building, its tenancy schedule in summary, the key value drivers, and the principal risks.
• The key issues you had to resolve: for example a short weighted average unexpired lease term, a tenant in administration, and limited recent comparable evidence.
• The options you considered and why you rejected some: for example reversionary term-and-reversion versus an all-risks-yield approach versus a discounted cash flow.
• Your conclusion, your reported figure rationale, any special assumptions, and the lessons you learned.

Self-marking note - what the panel listens for: clear structure, time discipline, your personal role made explicit, the key issues identified early, and a conclusion that shows judgement and reflection. The presentation is weighted heavily because it sets the tone. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Weighting".

Red flag: reading verbatim from a script, running over ten minutes, describing the team's work without isolating your own contribution, or presenting with no statement of the problem you solved.

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L2 / case study]

• A short unexpired term raises reletting and void risk, which the market prices through a softer yield and explicit allowances for voids, rent-free periods, and reletting costs.
• I reflected this by adopting a term-and-reversion approach, applying the contracted rents over the unexpired terms, then the estimated rental value on reversion, with a void and rent-free allowance at each lease expiry.
• I cross-checked the result against an all-risks yield on the rack-rented value, and I tested sensitivity to the void period and the reversionary yield.
• The net effect was a lower capital value than a fully let, long-income asset of the same rent roll, which is what a lender needs to understand for security cover.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for a clear link between the risk (short term) and the mechanism (yield and explicit cash flow allowances), plus evidence you cross-checked. Naming a method is L1. Applying it to this asset with reasoning is L2.

Red flag: "I used the investment method" with no explanation of how the short term changed the inputs. Saying you simply applied a higher yield with no void analysis.

Cites: RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025, VPS 5 (valuation approaches and methods). CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Valuation L2 descriptor.

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L2 plus Client care L2]

• I confirmed the purpose as secured lending and that the lender is the client and the addressee, and I addressed any reliance by a borrower through a separate term, not by silence.
• I disclosed any previous involvement with the property or the parties, and I confirmed there was no conflict of interest, or I set out how a conflict would be managed.
• I confirmed the basis of value as Market Value, the valuation date, the extent of inspection and investigation, the assumptions and any special assumptions, and the limitations on liability.
• I flagged that the report would address the suitability of the property as loan security and comment on factors a lender needs, such as marketability and reletting risk, which a management valuation would not require.

Self-marking note: the panel wants to hear the purpose driving the scope. Secured lending triggers conflict checks, addressee and reliance control, and security-specific commentary. Source confidence: VPS 1 governs terms of engagement.

Red flag: treating terms of engagement as a standard template with no purpose-specific content. Forgetting the conflict of interest check that is especially live in lending work.

Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 1 (terms of engagement) and PS 2 section 3 (independence, objectivity, conflicts). CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Loan security valuation descriptor.

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L2 / Landlord and tenant L2]

• I established the covenant position: whether the administrator was paying rent, whether the lease was being kept on foot, and the likely outcome for that unit.
• I treated that income as at risk. I valued the unit on the basis most supportable by evidence, which here meant assuming a void on lease determination with reletting at estimated rental value, plus a void and incentive allowance.
• I disclosed this assumption clearly to the lender, because it is material to security cover, and I noted the uncertainty it introduced.
• I confirmed the legal position on the lease with the client's solicitor rather than assuming it, in line with relying on appropriate sources.

Self-marking note: covenant strength is a core value driver. The panel listens for risk recognition, a defensible assumption, clear disclosure, and verification of the legal position rather than guesswork.

Red flag: ignoring covenant risk and valuing the unit at full passing rent regardless. Making a legal judgement about the lease yourself.

Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 4 (assumptions and special assumptions handled within VPS 2 bases of value and VPS 4 investigations) and VPS 2 (bases of value). Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 1.5 (advice on reliable evidence).

[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3: reasoned advice]

• Before: I carry out a desktop review (title, planning, tenancy schedule, prior reports), then a dynamic risk assessment for personal safety, in line with RICS Surveying Safely. I confirm access arrangements and bring the right equipment and personal protective equipment.
• On site: I record building and site characteristics systematically: construction, age, condition, services, specification, energy performance, statutory compliance signs, and the quality of location and design. I photograph and take notes against a checklist so the record is auditable.
• Defects and risk: I identify potential defects and their implications, and I distinguish what I can advise on from what needs a specialist, for example a structural engineer or an environmental consultant.
• Reasoned advice: I then advise the client on what the inspection means for value and risk, and I make the client aware of any statutory responsibilities, for example fire safety or asbestos duties, where appropriate.

Self-marking note: L3 needs reasoned advice arising from the inspection, not just a description of looking around. The panel listens for the safety dynamic risk assessment, an auditable record, the limits of your competence, and advice that links the inspection to value and to the client's statutory duties.

Red flag: no mention of safety or dynamic risk assessment. Claiming to diagnose defects beyond your competence. Treating inspection as a checklist with no advice attached.

Cites: RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard, dynamic risk assessment. RICS Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property, 1st edition (reissued April 2023). CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3 descriptor.

[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3 plus Building pathology awareness]

• I recorded the visible evidence (cracking pattern, settlement, any movement at junctions) and photographed it, without overstating what a visual inspection can confirm.
• I advised the client that the cause could not be diagnosed from a non-intrusive inspection and that a structural engineer should investigate, because the implication for value and for any lending decision is material.
• I set out the limitations clearly: parts not inspected, no opening up, no testing, and the assumption basis the valuation then rested on.
• I framed the commercial consequence: if the defect is confirmed, repair cost and disruption affect value and marketability, and I would caveat the figure accordingly or value subject to a special assumption pending the engineer's report.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for honesty about the limits of a visual inspection, a clear referral to the right specialist, explicit limitations, and a link to value and lending risk. This is reasoned advice, which is the L3 standard.

Red flag: diagnosing the structural cause yourself. Failing to caveat the valuation. Not referring on.

Cites: CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3 and Building pathology descriptors. Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2 and VPS 4 (assumptions and special assumptions).

[MODEL ANSWER - Measurement L2: application]

• For offices I measure to IPMS where the instruction and the market support it, and I am clear about which IPMS figure I am reporting, for example the area used internally versus the area excluding internal walls.
• Where the local market quotes and transacts on a different convention, I also state Net Internal Area or the relevant local basis, so the figure is comparable to my evidence. I never mix bases without saying so.
• I use the right instruments (laser, tape) and I understand and disclose the sources of error and the level of accuracy required for the purpose.
• I keep the measured survey auditable and I check the calculations, because the area drives the rent and the value.

Self-marking note: L2 is application. The panel listens for the correct standard, an explicit basis, alignment between the measurement basis and the comparable evidence, and an understanding of error and accuracy.

Red flag: "I measured the floor area" with no named basis. Comparing a Net Internal Area rent to a Gross Internal Area floor plate. Not knowing the difference between IPMS bases.

Cites: IPMS: All Buildings (current edition, effective 15 January 2023). RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015) for non-IPMS bases such as NIA. CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Measurement L2 descriptor.

[MODEL ANSWER - Measurement L2]

• Error sources I watch for: instrument calibration, irregular floor shapes, sloping or stepped areas, columns and risers, and inconsistent application of the chosen basis.
• I match accuracy to purpose. A valuation for secured lending needs a reliable measured area; a quick pre-acquisition steer can tolerate a stated approximation, clearly labelled as such.
• I check my own calculations and, on larger or more valuable assets, I have the measurement independently checked.
• Where I rely on a third party's areas, for example a vendor's floor plan, I say so and state the assumption, because the area is only as good as its source.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for a realistic grasp of where measurement goes wrong, accuracy tied to purpose, and honesty about relied-upon areas.

Red flag: claiming perfect accuracy. Relying silently on a vendor's plan without stating the assumption.

Cites: CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Measurement L2 descriptor (sources of error, accuracy for purpose). RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015).

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L2, with L1 knowledge underpinning]

• Market Value is the estimated amount for which an asset should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm's length transaction, after proper marketing, where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.
• An assumption is a supposition taken to be true that it is reasonable to make without specific investigation, for example that good title exists.
• A special assumption is one that differs from the facts at the valuation date, or that a typical market participant would not make, for example valuing on the special assumption of vacant possession when the property is in fact let, or assuming planning consent that has not yet been granted.
• Special assumptions must be agreed with the client, recorded in the terms of engagement, and reported, because they change the figure materially.

Self-marking note: a clean Market Value definition and a correct, exampled distinction between assumption and special assumption are L1 to L2 foundations. Get these word-perfect; the panel uses them as a baseline.

Red flag: reciting the wrong VPS number for the current edition. Confusing assumption with special assumption. Citing "VPS 4 bases of value", which is the superseded edition reference: under the current Red Book it is VPS 2.

Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, effective 31 January 2025, VPS 2 (bases of value, assumptions and special assumptions), which incorporates the IVS Market Value definition. Note the structural change: bases of value moved to VPS 2 in this edition.

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L2 plus judgement]

• I gathered every transaction and asking-price datapoint I could verify, then weighted them by reliability, recency, and comparability, adjusting transparently for differences in location, specification, lease terms, and date.
• Where direct evidence was thin, I triangulated: yields from the wider investment market, rents from letting evidence, and a cross-check using a different method, so the answer did not rest on a single weak comparable.
• I documented my reasoning so the figure is auditable and the adjustments are visible.
• Where the lack of evidence was material, I disclosed valuation uncertainty in the report, in line with the Red Book, so the lender understood the confidence attaching to the figure.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for a defensible evidence hierarchy, transparent adjustment, a cross-check, and an honest uncertainty disclosure rather than false precision. Thin markets are common across the region, so this is a strong place to show judgement.

Red flag: hiding behind a single comparable. Reporting a precise figure with no uncertainty caveat in a genuinely thin market.

Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 3 (valuation reports) and VPS 2; material valuation uncertainty addressed under PS 1 and VPGA 10. Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 1.5 (reliable evidence).

[MODEL ANSWER - Landlord and tenant L2]

• I started with the lease: the review clause, the basis (open market rent), the assumptions and disregards, the review date, and any cap, collar, or indexation.
• I gathered comparable lettings and reviews, analysed them to a common basis (for example a rent per square metre on a consistent floor-area convention), and adjusted for incentives, lease length, and specification.
• I formed and supported an opinion of the reviewed rent, set out my analysis clearly for negotiation, and identified the realistic settlement range.
• I understood the dispute route if agreement failed: referral to an independent expert or arbitrator under the lease, and I kept my advice within my role as adviser to one party.

Self-marking note: L2 is application: lease first, then evidence analysed to a common basis, then a supported opinion and a negotiation strategy. The panel listens for the disregards and assumptions in the clause, not just a headline rent.

Red flag: quoting a rent with no reference to the review clause terms. Confusing the role of an adviser with the role of an independent expert.

Cites: CRE Pathway Guide December 2025, Landlord and tenant descriptor. RICS Surveyors Acting as Independent Experts in Commercial Property Rent Reviews, 9th edition (for the dispute route, where relevant).

[MODEL ANSWER - Client care L2]

• I acknowledge the complaint promptly, in writing, and I follow my firm's published complaints-handling procedure, which includes an alternative dispute resolution provider approved by RICS.
• I respond openly and professionally, I do not dissuade the client from approaching the ADR provider or RICS, and I keep a record on the complaints log.
• I treat a complaint as a service signal: I check whether the scope, fee, and timescales were clear at the outset, because most complaints trace back to expectations not agreed in writing.
• If the complaint reveals a possible significant breach, I consider my reporting duty.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the firm's documented procedure, the ADR route, the complaints log, and the link back to clear terms of engagement. Client care and Rules of Conduct overlap here.

Red flag: "I would phone them and smooth it over" with no procedure, no log, and no ADR route. Dissuading the client from RICS or ADR.

Cites: Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 5.4 (respond to complaints), 5.5 (do not dissuade from ADR or RICS), Appendix A firm obligation 1 (publish a complaints-handling procedure and maintain a complaints log).

[MODEL ANSWER - Health and safety L2]

• A dynamic risk assessment is the continuous, on-the-spot reassessment of hazards as conditions change during a task, on top of the pre-visit generic and specific risk assessments.
• In practice it means I do not proceed into an unsafe area: if I find a vacant unit with no lighting, evidence of unstable structure, or a hostile occupier, I stop, step back, and reschedule with the right control in place.
• I follow the hierarchy of control, I carry the right personal protective equipment, and I make sure someone knows where I am and when I am due back (lone-working protocol).
• I record the decision so the file shows why I did or did not enter.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for a real example of changing the plan, the lone-working protocol, and the hierarchy of control. A textbook definition with no lived example is weak at L2.

Red flag: reciting the definition with no on-site story. Saying you would press on regardless to get the job done.

Cites: RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard (dynamic risk assessment, lone working, hierarchy of control).

[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L1 to L3 bridge]

• Rule 1 Honesty and integrity. Rule 2 Competence. Rule 3 Service. Rule 4 Respect and inclusion. Rule 5 Public interest and responsibility.
• In valuation work I engage Rule 1 and Rule 3 most: Rule 1.5, that advice is honest and objective and based on reliable evidence, and Rule 3, good-quality diligent service with clear scope and proper records.
• I would explain a live example from my own work where I had to apply a specific sub-rule, not just name the Rule.

Self-marking note: the panel uses this as a warm-up. Naming the five Rules is L1. Tying a sub-rule to your own work is L2 to L3. Always cite the sub-rule number, never "Rule 1" alone for an application.

Red flag: getting a Rule wrong or missing one. Citing the superseded 2020 split Rules for members and firms.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Global, effective 2 February 2022, Rules 1 to 5 and Appendix A.

[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3: reasoned advice]

• Rules engaged: Rule 1.1 (do not mislead), Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly by referrals or self-interest), Rule 1.5 (honest, objective advice on reliable evidence), and Red Book PS 2 (independence and objectivity). The referral relationship makes Rule 1.2 acute.
• Action recommended: I decline to move the figure, that day, in writing. My opinion is evidence-based and the figure does not change to fit a loan. I offer to revisit the comparables or methodology only on the merits, and only if I have missed evidence.
• Documentation to create: a file note of the request and my refusal, a written confirmation to the requester restating the basis of the figure, and a record of any conflict the referral relationship creates.
• Escalation path: if pressure continues, I escalate to my firm's compliance lead or responsible principal. If the firm pressures me to comply, that becomes a suspected significant breach reportable to RICS under Rule 5.9. I am prepared for the client to walk away.

Self-marking note: L3 needs the Rule cited, the action recommended, the documentation created, and the escalation path. The referral angle tests whether you spot Rule 1.2. Saying "I would refuse" without the documentation and escalation is only half an L3 answer.

Red flag: "I would have a quiet word and meet them halfway." Treating disclosure of the referral relationship as a cure rather than a trigger to manage or decline. Missing Rule 5.9.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 5.9. Red Book Global December 2024, PS 2 sections 1 and 3 (ethics, independence, objectivity).

[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 / Conflicts of Interest]

• Rules engaged: Rule 1.3 (identify conflicts throughout the assignment), Rule 1.4 (firm processes and records), Rule 3.6 (communicate material information to the client), and potentially Rule 5.9 (significant breach).
• Action recommended: stop work. Assess whether this is a confidential information conflict or a party conflict under the RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement. Notify the affected client(s) in writing, plainly. Seek informed consent to proceed only if the conditions in the professional statement are met, with information barriers. Withdraw if consent is refused or the conflict cannot be managed.
• Documentation to create: a conflicts memo, the written client disclosure, any informed-consent letters, and a file note on the system gap and its fix.
• Escalation path: firm conflicts controller, then responsible principal; report to RICS under Rule 5.9 only if not remediated. Internally, fix the register so subcontracted and historic work flows into it.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the three conflict types, that disclosure alone is not a cure, the informed-consent and information-barrier conditions, and a system fix. This is the classic CRE ethics scenario.

Red flag: "I would just disclose it and carry on." Treating disclosure as sufficient. Not fixing the underlying register.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.6, 5.9. RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017 (conflict types, informed consent). Red Book Global December 2024, PS 2 section 3.

[MODEL ANSWER - CPD, mandatory]

• I complete at least 20 hours of CPD a year, of which at least 10 hours are formal, and I record it. I plan it against my development needs, not just to hit the number.
• I would give a specific, recent example, for example CPD on the current Red Book edition and the move of bases of value to VPS 2, and explain how it changed a report I then produced.
• I maintain my competence as required by Rule 2.5 and stay up to date with legislation and technical standards under Rule 2.6.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the correct CPD obligation, a real example with an outcome, and a link to Rule 2. A generic "I do my CPD" with no example is weak.

Red flag: not knowing the hours requirement. No concrete example of CPD changing your practice.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 2.5 (maintain and develop knowledge, comply with CPD requirements set by RICS), Rule 2.6 (stay up to date), Appendix A member obligation 1.

[MODEL ANSWER - professional awareness]

• Pick one genuine issue you can speak to with depth: for example sustainability and energy disclosure pressure on commercial valuations, currency and material valuation uncertainty in a thin market, or the impact of power supply on occupier demand and value.
• Explain the mechanism: how the issue feeds into rent, yield, void risk, or cost, and therefore into value and advice.
• Explain your response: the CPD you have done, the way you reflect it in reports, and how you advise clients on it. Tie sustainability to Rule 3.10, encouraging solutions that minimise harm.

Self-marking note: the chair listens for genuine engagement with the profession, not a headline. One issue covered with depth beats three name-dropped. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Questioning techniques" (issues of current concern to the profession).

Red flag: a vague "interest rates are high" with no mechanism and no personal response.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3.10 (encourage sustainable solutions). RICS Sustainability and ESG, 3rd edition standard (May 2023) for the sustainability angle, where relevant.

[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 close]

• Rules engaged: Rule 2.1 (only undertake work within your competence), Rule 5.1 (raise concerns in good faith), Rule 5.2 (support those who raise concerns), Rule 5.9 (act on breaches; report significant breaches).
• Action recommended: I support the colleague and I do not promise blanket confidentiality, because the public interest and a possible significant breach override a private assurance. I encourage the colleague to raise it internally and I would raise it myself if they will not. The valuation may need to be reviewed and corrected.
• Documentation to create: a file note of the disclosure and my advice, and a record of the internal escalation.
• Escalation path: the firm's compliance lead or responsible principal first; report to RICS under Rule 5.9 if it is a significant breach and is not remediated. If the partner's pressure is the problem, that is itself reportable.

Self-marking note: the chair listens for whether you protect the colleague and the public interest without giving a confidentiality promise you cannot keep. The competence breach (Rule 2.1) plus the pressure plus the reporting duty are the three threads.

Red flag: promising to keep it quiet. Treating it purely as an internal HR matter with no Rule 5.9 consideration. Doing nothing.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 2.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.9.

Chair: "Thank you. That brings us to the end of the interview. You will receive the result through RICS in due course. We will not give you any indication of the outcome today. Thank you for your time."

Self-marking note: the panel never signals the result. A warm close is not a pass. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, the panel must not indicate how well or badly the interview is going.