How to use this pack
This pack mirrors the real RICS APC final assessment for the Residential pathway. Read Script A below out loud with a counsellor or a study partner. They play the chairperson and the technical assessor. You answer cold, without notes, in the time bands shown. Then grade the run against the marking sheet. Repeat with Script B for a second pass on different scenario angles.
- This page (Script A) - the full scripted mock with model answers and self-marking notes. The angle here is valuation and inspection for secured lending.
- Script B variant - a second question set, same structure, different angle: residential agency, lettings and management. Open Script B.
- Panel marking sheet - a printable score sheet with referral triggers. Open the marking sheet.
Scenarios are generic and illustrative. No real firm, client, or transaction is named. Your own answers in a live assessment must come from your declared Summary of Experience and case study.
How the 60 minutes runs
RICS sets one standard structure for the final assessment interview across all pathways. The panel is normally three assessors, minimum two, one acting as chairperson. The interview is conducted by approved video call. The structure below is taken from the RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, the "Interview structure" table.
| Stage | Time | Who leads | What is happening |
|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate presentation on the case study | 10 min | Candidate | You present your case study. A 360-degree room scan is requested before the clock starts. No notes that give an advantage; the panel watches communication as much as content. |
| Questions on the presentation | 10 min | Technical assessor and chair | Direct questioning on the case study: the key issues, options considered, options rejected, your reasoning, and lessons learned. |
| Discussion on overall experience, including CPD, Rules of Conduct and professional practice | 30 min | Technical assessor (core and optional) plus chair (mandatory) | The main block. Your core technical competencies (here Inspection L3, Valuation L3, Measurement L2), your optional competencies, then mandatory competencies and CPD. Ethics is woven throughout. |
| Chairperson's areas of questioning and close | 10 min | Chair | Professional and technical matters, CPD, Rules of Conduct, mandatory competencies, and a final ethics scenario. The chair gives the last word and confirms the interview is ending. |
| Total | 60 min | The chair manages timing and may extend only for technology or other unforeseen interruptions. |
The Residential competency map you will be questioned against
Before the mock, fix the levels in your mind. The panel will not question you above your declared level, and they will reference the competency and level before each question. The Residential pathway works differently from Commercial Real Estate. The Core competencies are not fixed: you choose them from a menu. Read the next paragraph carefully, it is a common point of confusion.
The Residential Core rule (read this twice): the candidate selects two competencies to Level 3 and two to Level 2 from the Core menu, and within that selection Inspection, Measurement, and Valuation must each reach at least Level 2. So Measurement is a minimum of Level 2, while Inspection and Valuation are commonly taken to Level 3 by residential survey-and-valuation candidates. This is different from the Commercial Real Estate pathway, where Inspection is fixed at L3, Measurement at L2, and Valuation at L2 (or L3).
| Category | Competency | Level |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory | Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism | L3 |
| Mandatory | Client care | L2 |
| Mandatory | Communication and negotiation | L2 |
| Mandatory | Health and safety | L2 |
| Mandatory | Accounting, Business planning, Conflict avoidance, Data management, Diversity inclusion and teamworking, Inclusive environments, Sustainability | L1 |
| Core (this candidate) | Inspection | L3 |
| Core (this candidate) | Valuation | L3 |
| Core (this candidate) | Measurement | L2 (minimum) |
| Core (this candidate) | Building pathology (chosen as the second L2 Core) | L2 |
| Core menu (not all chosen) | Housing maintenance repairs and improvements, Housing management and policy, Housing strategy and provision, Leasing and letting, Legal/regulatory compliance, Market appraisal, Property management, Purchase and sale | chosen per declaration |
| Optional (example) | Two to L3 and one to L2 from the optional list, plus one to L2 from the full technical list | per declaration |
Levels confirmed from the RICS Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Version 1.1, Section 3 Pathway requirements (page 3) and Section 4 competency descriptors. Note on Measurement: the guide states Level 3 Measurement is only recommended for candidates with specialist sophisticated-measurement experience, and points such candidates to the RICS Geomatics pathway. Most residential candidates carry Measurement at Level 2. Note on Valuation: if you wish to become an RICS Registered Valuer you must take Valuation to Level 3.
Script A - the full mock
The candidate brief below is generic. Read it as if it were your own. Each block shows the question, a model answer at the right level, and a self-marking note. The model answers are a guide to depth, not a script to memorise. In a real assessment you must speak from your own work.
Stage 1 - Presentation (10 minutes)
Chair opening and presentation brief
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 for a mortgage), the basis of value (Market Value), the interest valued (freehold or the local equivalent), and the valuation date.
- The asset: a four-bedroom house, its accommodation, age and construction, its condition in summary, the key value drivers (location, plot, condition, demand), and the principal risks.
- The key issues you had to resolve: for example a thin set of recent comparables in that suburb, an extension that you suspected lacked approval, and signs of a possible defect.
- The options you considered and why you rejected some: for example whether to value subject to a special assumption pending a building approval search, or to caveat and report material uncertainty.
- Your conclusion, your reported figure rationale, any special assumptions, the suitability of the property as security, 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 sets the tone and carries weight. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Weighting".
Red flag: reading verbatim from a script, running over ten minutes, describing the firm's work without isolating your own contribution, or presenting with no statement of the problem you solved.
Stage 2 - Questions on the presentation (10 minutes)
Q1. You valued for secured lending. What does the bank need from a residential valuation that a private buyer's market appraisal would not require?
[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3 / Client care L2]
- The bank is the client and the addressee, and the valuation must comment on the suitability of the property as loan security, not just report a number.
- I confirm the purpose as secured lending, the basis as Market Value, the valuation date, the extent of inspection, the assumptions and any special assumptions, and the limitations on liability, all in the terms of engagement.
- I flag matters a lender needs: marketability, demand depth in that suburb, any reinstatement-cost-for-insurance figure if instructed, and any features that would slow a forced sale.
- A market appraisal for a private seller is sale advice on likely asking and achievable price; it is not a Red Book valuation and I would say so plainly, because confusing the two misleads the reader.
Self-marking note: the panel wants the purpose driving the scope. Secured lending triggers addressee control, suitability-as-security commentary, and a clear line between a valuation and a market appraisal. Naming the difference is the discriminator.
Red flag: treating a lending valuation as the same product as a sale appraisal. Forgetting to comment on suitability as security.
Cites: RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025, VPS 1 (terms of engagement) and VPGA 2 (valuations for secured lending). RICS Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Valuation and Market appraisal descriptors.
Q2. You said the comparable evidence in that suburb was thin. How did you reach and support your opinion, and how did you handle the uncertainty?
[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3: reasoned advice]
- I gathered every verifiable transaction and asking-price datapoint, then weighted them by reliability, recency, and comparability, adjusting transparently for plot size, accommodation, condition, and date.
- Where direct sales evidence was thin I triangulated: rental evidence and a gross yield cross-check, asking prices discounted for the typical gap to achieved price, and any new-build pricing as an upper reference.
- I documented the adjustments so the figure is auditable and the reasoning visible, not a single weak comparable carrying the whole opinion.
- Where the lack of evidence was material I disclosed valuation uncertainty in the report, so the lender understood the confidence attaching to the figure.
Self-marking note: L3 needs a defensible evidence hierarchy, transparent adjustment, a cross-check, and an honest uncertainty disclosure rather than false precision. Thin residential markets are common across the region, so this is a strong place to show judgement.
Red flag: hiding behind one comparable. Reporting a precise figure with no uncertainty caveat in a genuinely thin market.
Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 3 (valuation reports), VPS 2 (bases of value); material valuation uncertainty addressed under PS 1 and VPGA 10. RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 1.5 (advice on reliable evidence).
Q3. You suspected an extension lacked building approval. Walk me through what you did about it.
[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3 / Legal and regulatory awareness]
- I noted the extension, its apparent age and quality, and the risk that it was built without approval or did not comply with the local building bylaws.
- I did not make the legal judgement myself. I recommended the lender's solicitor confirm the approval position and any enforcement risk, and I made my valuation subject to a clear assumption that approvals exist and are compliant, stated in the report.
- I explained the value consequence: if approvals are absent, the cost and risk of regularisation or removal affects value and marketability, and I would caveat or revisit the figure once the legal position was confirmed.
- I disclosed this clearly to the lender because it is material to the security decision.
Self-marking note: the panel listens for risk recognition, a defensible assumption, a clear referral of the legal question to the right party, and disclosure to the client. Do not value as if approval certainly exists or certainly does not; state the assumption.
Red flag: deciding the legal compliance position yourself. Ignoring the approval risk and valuing the extended house at full value with no caveat.
Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2 (assumptions and special assumptions) and VPGA 2 (secured lending). RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 2.1 (work within competence, do not give legal advice you are not qualified to give).
Stage 3 - Discussion on overall experience (30 minutes)
This block moves across your core technical competencies, your optional competencies, then mandatory competencies and CPD. The technical assessor leads the technical questions; the chair leads the mandatory and Rules of Conduct questions.
Core: Inspection (L3)
Q4. Take me through how you prepare for and carry out the inspection of a house for valuation, and what you do with the risks you find.
[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3: reasoned advice]
- Before: I carry out a desktop review (title, plot boundaries, any approvals, prior reports, locality), then a dynamic risk assessment for personal safety, in line with RICS Surveying Safely. I confirm access and bring the right equipment and personal protective equipment.
- On site: I record the building and site systematically: construction, age, accommodation, condition, services, specification, boundaries, and the quality of location, design and outlook. I photograph and note against a checklist so the record is auditable.
- Defects and risk: I identify potential defects and their implications, structural and environmental, and I distinguish what I can advise on from what needs a specialist, for example a structural engineer or a damp and timber specialist.
- 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 where appropriate.
Self-marking note: L3 needs reasoned advice arising from the inspection, not a description of walking 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 responsibilities.
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 Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Inspection L3 descriptor (reasoned advice and recommendations arising from inspection; making clients aware of statutory responsibilities). RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard (dynamic risk assessment).
Q5. You inspected a house and saw stepped cracking to an external wall. What did you advise, and how did you frame the limits of your inspection?
[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3 plus Building pathology L2]
- I recorded the visible evidence (crack pattern, width, location relative to openings, any displacement, any nearby trees or drains) and photographed it, without overstating what a visual inspection can confirm.
- I advised the client that the cause, for example subsidence, thermal movement, or settlement, could not be diagnosed from a non-intrusive inspection, and that a structural engineer should investigate because the implication for value and lending is material.
- I set out the limitations clearly: parts not inspected, no opening up, no monitoring of crack movement over time, and the assumption basis the valuation then rested on.
- I framed the commercial consequence: if movement is active, repair cost, insurance implications, and marketability affect value, so I would caveat the figure 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, with building-pathology knowledge underpinning it.
Red flag: diagnosing the structural cause yourself. Failing to caveat the valuation. Not referring on. Confusing thermal cracking with subsidence with no reasoning.
Cites: RICS Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Inspection L3 and Building pathology descriptors. Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2 (assumptions and special assumptions). RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition (reissued July 2023).
Core: Building pathology (L2)
Q6. What are the common defects you expect in residential buildings in your locality, and how do you diagnose damp?
[MODEL ANSWER - Building pathology L2: application]
- Common local defects: rising and penetrating damp, roof covering failure and leaks, cracking from movement, timber decay and infestation, poor or absent damp-proofing, and the effects of poor original construction or unapproved alterations.
- For damp I work from evidence: tide marks and salting at low level suggest rising damp; staining below a window or around a chimney suggests penetrating damp; mould in cold corners suggests condensation. I use a moisture meter as an indicator, not a diagnosis, and I know its limitations.
- I link cause to mechanism: I explain why the damp is occurring, not just that it is present, and I recommend the right remedy or a specialist where the cause is unclear.
- I record the evidence and photograph it, and I am clear about the limits of a non-intrusive inspection.
Self-marking note: L2 is application: diagnose cause and mechanism, not just observe. The panel listens for the moisture-meter limitation, the difference between rising, penetrating and condensation damp, and a sensible remedy or referral.
Red flag: "the meter said it was damp" as a diagnosis. Confusing condensation with rising damp. No grasp of cause and mechanism.
Cites: RICS Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Building pathology L2 descriptor (apply knowledge to diagnose cause and mechanisms of failure). RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition (reissued July 2023) for the safety thread.
Core: Measurement (L2)
Q7. What measurement basis do you use for a house, and how do you control sources of error?
[MODEL ANSWER - Measurement L2: application]
- For a house I measure to a clearly stated basis. Where IPMS Residential applies and the market supports it, I use IPMS and state which IPMS figure I am reporting; where the local market quotes on gross floor area or another local convention, I state that basis and align it to my comparable evidence.
- I never mix bases without saying so, because the area drives the value and a mismatched comparison misleads.
- Error sources I watch for: instrument calibration, irregular and stepped rooms, sloping plots, and inconsistent application of the chosen basis. I check my own calculations.
- I match accuracy to purpose: a lending valuation needs a reliable measured area, and where I rely on a third party's floor plan I say so and state the assumption.
Self-marking note: L2 is application. The panel listens for a named basis, alignment between the basis and the comparable evidence, control of error, and accuracy matched to purpose.
Red flag: "I measured the floor area" with no named basis. Comparing a gross-area sale to a net-area subject. Relying silently on a vendor's plan.
Cites: RICS Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Measurement L2 descriptor (sources of error, accuracy for purpose, RICS Property Measurement). IPMS: All Buildings (effective 15 January 2023). RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015) for non-IPMS local bases.
Core: Valuation (L3)
Q8. Define Market Value and tell me the difference between an assumption and a special assumption, with a residential example of each.
[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3, 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 and that vacant possession will be given on completion of a sale.
- A special assumption differs from the facts at the valuation date, or is one a typical buyer would not make, for example valuing a part-built house on the special assumption of completion, or valuing on the special assumption that a building approval has 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 assumption-versus-special-assumption distinction are foundations. At L3 the panel expects the residential examples and the consequence (agree, record, report) without prompting.
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 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.
Q9. A client asks why your residential valuation differs from the AVM figure the bank generated. How do you respond?
[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3 plus judgement]
- I explain that an automated valuation model is a statistical estimate from data; it does not inspect, it cannot see condition, defects, an unapproved extension, or a poor plot, and it is only as good as the transaction data in that area.
- My figure reflects a physical inspection, verified comparables adjusted for the specific property, and my professional judgement, which is what a lending decision needs where the AVM confidence is low.
- I would set out, in plain terms, the specific factors that moved my figure away from the model, for example condition, a defect, or the thinness of local data.
- I keep my own work auditable and I do not flex my figure to match the model; the model is a cross-check, not the answer.
Self-marking note: the panel listens for a clear grasp of AVM strengths and limits, the value of inspection and judgement, and the discipline of not bending to the model. The Residential guide expressly expects candidates to understand the role and function of AVMs.
Red flag: dismissing AVMs entirely with no reasoning, or treating the AVM as authoritative and adjusting your figure to fit it.
Cites: RICS Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Valuation descriptor (role and function of automated valuation models). Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 5 (valuation approaches and methods), VPS 3 (reports).
Optional: Market appraisal (L2)
Q10. Talk me through how you prepare a market appraisal for a seller, and how it differs from a valuation.
[MODEL ANSWER - Market appraisal L2]
- I confirm the instruction and terms, inspect and gather information, then analyse comparable sale and asking-price evidence, adjusting for the subject's condition, accommodation, plot and location.
- I advise the seller on a realistic asking price and a likely achievable range, on the gap between asking and achieved price in that market, and on the marketing approach and timescale.
- I am explicit that a market appraisal is sale advice, not a Red Book valuation, and I do not present it as one, because the purposes and the reader's reliance differ.
- I keep my reasoning and the evidence on file so the advice is supportable.
Self-marking note: L2 needs the evidence analysed to a common basis, a realistic price range with the asking-versus-achieved gap, and a clean line between an appraisal and a valuation. The panel listens for the limitation, not just a headline price.
Red flag: presenting a market appraisal as a valuation. Quoting a single price with no range and no evidence base. Over-promising on price to win the instruction (see the ethics block).
Cites: RICS Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Market appraisal L2 descriptor (analysis of comparable evidence, terms of engagement, limitations of market appraisal advice). RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 1.5 (honest, objective advice on reliable evidence).
Mandatory: Client care (L2)
Q11. How do you handle a client complaint, and what does your firm's complaints process require?
[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 residential 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: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 5.4 (respond to complaints), Rule 5.5 (do not dissuade from ADR or RICS), Appendix A firm obligation (publish a complaints-handling procedure and maintain a complaints log).
Mandatory: Health and safety (L2)
Q12. What is a dynamic risk assessment, and when did you last change your plan on site because of one?
[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 situation: a roof void with no safe access, an aggressive occupier or dog, a vacant house with no lighting or an unstable floor. 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), which matters on residential visits to occupied homes.
- 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).
Mandatory: Ethics and Rules of Conduct (L3, woven through)
Q13. Name the five Rules of Conduct and tell me which one you think you engage most often in residential work, and why.
[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 residential agency and valuation I engage Rule 1 most: Rule 1.5, that advice is honest and objective and based on reliable evidence. The pressure to quote a flattering price to win an instruction makes this live every week.
- Rule 3 follows close behind: good-quality diligent service with clear scope, written terms, and proper records, because most residential complaints come from unclear expectations.
- I would explain a live example from my own work where I applied 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 residential 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.
Q14. (L3 scenario) A seller tells you that the rival agent has "valued" the house 15 percent higher to win the listing, and asks you to match it or lose the instruction. Advise.
[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3: reasoned advice, residential overvaluing]
- Rules engaged: Rule 1.1 (do not mislead), Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly by self-interest in winning the fee), Rule 1.5 (honest, objective advice on reliable evidence). Overvaluing to win an instruction is a textbook integrity breach.
- Action recommended: I do not inflate my figure to match. I give the seller my evidenced asking-price range and explain, in writing, what the comparables support and why an over-optimistic asking price usually means a stale listing, a later price drop, and a lower achieved price. I would rather lose the instruction than mislead.
- Documentation to create: a file note of the conversation and the rival figure, my written market appraisal with the evidence, and a record that I declined to inflate.
- Escalation path: if a colleague or my own firm pressures me to quote a figure I cannot support, that becomes a suspected significant breach reportable to RICS under Rule 5.9. I am prepared for the seller to instruct the other agent.
Self-marking note: L3 needs the Rule cited, the action recommended, the documentation created, and the escalation path. Overvaluing to win residential instructions is the single most common ethics scenario in this pathway. Saying "I would refuse" without the documentation and escalation is only half an L3 answer.
Red flag: "I would meet them in the middle to keep the instruction." Treating a market appraisal as a number you can flex to win work. 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) where the work is a valuation rather than an appraisal.
Q15. (L3 scenario) You manage a small residential lettings book. A landlord client asks you to release a departing tenant's deposit to him to "cover wear and tear", with no schedule and no tenant agreement. What do you do?
[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 / tenant deposit handling and client money]
- Rules engaged: Rule 1.1 (integrity), Rule 1.10 and 1.11 (handle client money with proper care, in line with the RICS client money rules and any statutory deposit scheme), Rule 3.6 (communicate material information to the affected parties), and potentially Rule 5.9.
- Action recommended: I do not release the deposit on the landlord's say-so. A deposit is held for both parties. I require a properly evidenced schedule of dilapidations distinguishing fair wear and tear from damage, I seek the tenant's agreement to any deductions, and I follow the lease, the tenancy terms, and any statutory deposit scheme or rent law that applies. Disputed amounts are not released; they go to the agreed dispute route.
- Documentation to create: the check-in and check-out inventories, the dilapidations schedule, written correspondence to both parties, and the client-money ledger entries.
- Escalation path: firm's compliance lead or responsible principal if the landlord insists; if I am pressured to misapply client money, that is a suspected significant breach reportable to RICS under Rule 5.9.
Self-marking note: the panel listens for the principle that a deposit is held for both parties, the evidenced wear-and-tear-versus-damage distinction, proper client-money handling, and a refusal to release disputed funds on one party's instruction. This is the classic residential lettings ethics scenario.
Red flag: "the landlord is my client, so I release it to him." Treating the deposit as the landlord's money. No inventory, no schedule, no tenant agreement.
Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.10, 1.11, 3.6, 5.9. RICS client money handling requirements (Appendix A firm obligations and the RICS client money rules).
CPD
Q16. What are your CPD obligations, and tell me about a recent piece of CPD that changed how you work?
[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, or training on residential defect diagnosis, 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.
Stage 4 - Chairperson's close (10 minutes)
Q17. (Chair) What is a current issue facing the residential property profession in your market, and how are you responding to it?
[MODEL ANSWER - professional awareness]
- Pick one genuine issue you can speak to with depth: for example currency and material valuation uncertainty in a thin residential market, the data gap and the rise of AVMs in lending, housing affordability and diaspora-driven demand, or the energy and sustainability pressure now reaching homes.
- Explain the mechanism: how the issue feeds into demand, price, marketability, or lending risk, and therefore into your advice.
- Explain your response: the CPD you have done, how you reflect it in reports, and how you advise clients. Where sustainability is the topic, tie it 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.
Q18. (Chair, final ethics close) A junior colleague tells you, in confidence, that they signed a residential mortgage valuation outside their competence under pressure from a partner. They ask you to keep it quiet. What do you do?
[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. A lending valuation signed outside competence may need review and correction. I encourage the colleague to raise it internally and I would raise it myself if they will not.
- 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 close (verbatim shape)
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.
How to grade the run
Use the panel marking sheet after each mock. The overall decision is holistic, on balance, taken across the presentation, the answers, and the submissions together. Key principles from the RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024:
- The candidate must achieve the required number of competencies at the correct levels. For Residential that means Ethics at L3, Client care, Communication, and Health and safety at L2, and the Core selection of two to L3 and two to L2 with Inspection, Measurement, and Valuation each at least L2, plus the optional competencies as declared.
- A deficiency in only one competency required to Level 1 would not normally refer a candidate. Failure to demonstrate the required competence on Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism is a referral trigger in its own right.
- Communication is a mandatory competency. A technically strong answer delivered poorly still loses marks.
- The decision is made on balance and holistically, not by counting ticks.
Standards cited in this pack
- RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024. The authoritative source for the interview structure, timing, questioning technique, and the post-interview marking approach.
- RICS Residential Pathway Guide, February 2024, Version 1.1. The Core selection rule (two to L3 and two to L2, with Inspection, Measurement and Valuation each at least L2) and the L1 to L3 competency descriptors. Confirmed from Section 3 (page 3) and Section 4 of the guide. Pending re-verification against any December 2025 Residential edition - flagged for Stobert.
- RICS Rules of Conduct, Global, October 2021, effective 2 February 2022. ISBN 978 1 78321 417 4. The five Rules and Appendix A.
- RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025. PS 2 (ethics), VPS 1 (terms of engagement), VPS 2 (bases of value, assumptions and special assumptions), VPS 3 (reports), VPS 5 (approaches and methods), VPGA 2 (secured lending), VPGA 10 (material valuation uncertainty).
- RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard. Dynamic risk assessment and lone working.
- IPMS: All Buildings (current edition, effective 15 January 2023) and RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015) for non-IPMS local bases.