Mock Interview Pack: Valuation

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 (financial reporting), the basis of value (Market Value, and whether Fair Value for financial statements under the relevant accounting standard was also engaged), the interest valued, and the valuation date.
• The asset: a multi-let commercial property, its tenancy schedule in summary, the key value drivers, and the principal risks.
• The key issues you had to resolve: for example a reversionary lease structure, a rent that was over-rented or under-rented against estimated rental value, and limited recent comparable evidence.
• The options you considered and why you rejected some: for example a term-and-reversion approach versus an all-risks-yield approach versus a discounted cash flow, and why your chosen method best fitted the asset.
• Your conclusion, your reported figure rationale, any assumptions or special assumptions, the standards you complied with, 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. On a Valuation pathway the panel expects the Red Book compliance thread to be visible from the outset. 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 a number with no statement of basis, purpose, and standard.

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3 / case study]

• For financial reporting I worked to Market Value, and where the financial statements were prepared under IFRS I addressed Fair Value as defined in IFRS 13. The Red Book treats Fair Value under IFRS 13 as generally consistent with Market Value, and I made that link explicit in my report.
• The valuation date, the interest, and the assumptions were aligned to the reporting date and the reporting entity's requirements, and I followed the specific provisions the Red Book sets for valuations for financial statements.
• For secured lending the basis would still usually be Market Value, but the report focus shifts: a lender needs commentary on suitability as loan security, marketability, and the position if the lender had to repossess, which a financial reporting valuation does not require.
• So the number can be the same Market Value, but the scope, the assumptions tested, and the report narrative differ by purpose. I made the purpose drive the engagement in each case.

Self-marking note: L3 is reasoned advice across purposes. The panel listens for the Market Value and Fair Value link for financial reporting, the right VPGA, and a clean contrast with the lending purpose. Naming a basis is L1; explaining how purpose drives scope and narrative is L3.

Red flag: saying financial reporting uses a different basis "because it is for accounts" with no IFRS 13 link. Confusing Fair Value under IFRS 13 with the older equitable Fair Value between identified parties.

Cites: RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025, VPS 2 (bases of value), VPGA 1 (valuations for inclusion in financial statements). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Valuation L3 descriptor.

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3]

• Over-renting means the passing rent sits above estimated rental value, so part of the income is an overage that is at risk at the next lease event (expiry, break, or review to a lower level).
• I separated the secure, market-level slice of income from the over-rented froth, and I valued them differently: the term income capitalised at one yield, and the reversion to estimated rental value at a softer yield to reflect the risk that the overage falls away.
• I cross-checked with a discounted cash flow, because a hardcore-and-froth or term-and-reversion approach can understate or overstate the timing risk, and a DCF lets me model the step down explicitly.
• The net effect was a value below a naive capitalisation of the full passing rent, which is the honest position for the accounts.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for recognition that over-rented income is not secure, a method that prices that risk, and a cross-check. This is a classic L3 discriminator on investment valuation.

Red flag: capitalising the full passing rent at a single yield as if the overage were permanent. Not knowing the term over-rent falls away at reversion.

Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 5 (valuation approaches and methods). RICS DCF for Commercial Property Investments, 1st edition, for the explicit cash flow cross-check. Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Valuation L3 descriptor.

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3 plus judgement]

• I gathered every transaction and asking-price datapoint I could verify, weighted them by reliability, recency, and comparability, and adjusted transparently for location, specification, lease terms, and date.
• Where direct evidence was thin I triangulated: investment yields from the wider market, letting evidence for estimated rental value, and a second method as a cross-check, so the figure did not rest on a single weak comparable.
• I kept the reasoning auditable, because a financial reporting figure feeds an audit, and the auditor and the directors must be able to see how I got there.
• Where the lack of evidence was material I disclosed valuation uncertainty in the report, in line with the Red Book, so users of the accounts understood the confidence attaching to the figure rather than reading false precision.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for a defensible evidence hierarchy, transparent adjustment, a cross-check, and an honest uncertainty disclosure tied to the fact that accounts users rely on it. Thin markets are the norm across the region, so this is a strong place to show L3 judgement.

Red flag: hiding behind one comparable. Reporting a precise figure with no uncertainty caveat in a genuinely thin market that feeds audited accounts.

Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 3 (valuation reports), VPS 2; material valuation uncertainty addressed under PS 1 and VPGA 10. Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 1.5 (advice based 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 on value: I then give reasoned advice on the impact of location, quantum, and obsolescence on value, I link what I saw to the valuation, and I make the client aware where appropriate of their statutory responsibilities, for example fire safety or asbestos duties.

Self-marking note: L3 needs reasoned advice arising from the inspection, not just a description of looking around. On the Valuation pathway the panel especially wants the inspection tied back into the valuation: location, quantum, and obsolescence driving the figure.

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 on value attached.

Cites: Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3 descriptor (reasoned advice, statutory responsibilities, location, quantum and obsolescence, impact on value). 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).

[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3 plus Building pathology awareness]

• I recorded the visible evidence and photographed it, without overstating what a visual, non-intrusive inspection can confirm.
• I advised the client that the cause could not be diagnosed from a non-intrusive inspection and that a specialist (for example a structural engineer) should investigate, because the implication for value is material.
• I set out the limitations clearly in the report: parts not inspected, no opening up, no testing, and the assumption basis the valuation then rested on.
• I framed the consequence for value: if the defect is confirmed, repair cost and obsolescence affect value and marketability, so I caveated the figure or valued subject to a special assumption pending the specialist's report, and I set out what I would do once the report was in.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for honesty about the limits of a visual inspection, a clear referral to the right specialist, explicit limitations in the report, and a link to value. This is reasoned advice, the L3 standard, and it shows the inspection and valuation working together.

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

Cites: Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3 descriptor. Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2 (assumptions and special assumptions). RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition (reissued July 2023).

[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 there are no onerous restrictions.
• 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 a 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. At L3 I would also say which basis and assumptions fit the purpose, and why.

Self-marking note: a clean Market Value definition and a correct, exampled distinction are foundations the panel uses as a baseline. At L3 they expect you to be word-perfect and to link the choice of basis and assumptions to the purpose. Get the VPS number right for the current edition.

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), incorporating the IVS Market Value definition. Note the structural change: bases of value moved to VPS 2 in this edition (it was VPS 4 in older editions).

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3]

• The market (comparable) approach: I derive value from transactions of similar assets, adjusted for differences. I use it where there is reliable, comparable evidence, for example standard offices, retail, and many residential assets.
• The income approach: I capitalise or discount the income the asset produces, by an all-risks yield, term-and-reversion, hardcore, or a discounted cash flow. I use it for investment assets, especially where lease structure, reversion, or growth assumptions matter.
• The cost approach (depreciated replacement cost): I value the land plus the depreciated cost of the buildings. I use it for specialised assets that rarely trade, for example a purpose-built plant or an owner-occupied special-use building, as a method of last resort where market and income evidence is absent.
• At L3 I would say the approaches should reconcile: where I have more than one, I cross-check and explain any divergence rather than averaging blindly.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the three approaches named correctly, a sensible matching of approach to asset type, depreciated replacement cost flagged as a method for specialised assets, and a reconciliation instinct. This is core L3 territory.

Red flag: using "approach" and "method" loosely, or not knowing depreciated replacement cost is for specialised, rarely-traded assets. Averaging two methods with no reconciliation.

Cites: Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 5 (valuation approaches and methods), incorporating the IVS approaches (market, income, cost). RICS DCF for Commercial Property Investments, 1st edition, for the discounted cash flow method.

[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3]

• I make the level of service explicit in the terms of engagement: a desktop or restricted valuation rests on information provided and on assumptions about matters I have not verified, and I state those limitations and any restriction on reliance.
• I advise the client on the benefits and the limitations of each level: a desktop is faster and cheaper but carries more assumption risk; a full inspection-led valuation gives more assurance and is needed for some purposes, for example certain secured lending.
• On automated valuation models, I treat an AVM output as evidence to inform a valuation, not as a Red Book valuation in itself. I understand and disclose its limitations: model age, data inputs, and the inability to reflect condition or specific defects.
• Whatever the level, the report must say what I did and did not do, so the figure is not relied on beyond its scope.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the level of service driving the assumptions and the reliance, honest limitations, and a sensible view of AVMs as a tool not a substitute. The pathway guide names desktop versus full inspection-led as an L3 discriminator.

Red flag: treating a desktop figure as carrying the same assurance as an inspected valuation. Presenting an AVM output as a Red Book valuation.

Cites: Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Valuation L3 descriptor (levels of service, desktop versus full inspection-led, AVMs). Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 1 (terms of engagement) and VPS 2 (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. Note the guide flags Measurement L3 as only for geospatial specialists; most valuation candidates correctly sit at L2.

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. Valuation 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 financial reporting or 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 or architect'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: Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Measurement L2 descriptor (sources of error, accuracy required for purpose). RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015).

[MODEL ANSWER - Loan security valuation L3]

• I confirm the lender is the client and the addressee, I run a conflict of interest check that is especially live in lending work, and I set the terms of engagement to the lender's requirements where they differ from the standard.
• The basis is usually Market Value, but the report adds security-specific commentary: a SWOT or strengths-and-weaknesses analysis, comment on the lease terms and income security, the future performance of the investment, and the wider market influences.
• I advise on suitability as loan security: marketability, and what would happen to value and saleability if the lender had to repossess and sell, including likely timescale.
• Where a property is not suitable for secured lending, because of Red Book or lender requirements, I say so and give reasoned advice on why, rather than forcing a figure. I research matters that may affect valuation certainty and I disclose any material uncertainty.

Self-marking note: the pathway guide L3 descriptor explicitly wants a SWOT/comparable matrix, commentary on marketability if the lender repossesses, suitability for secured lending, and reasoned advice where a property is not suitable. Hit those and tie them to a real example.

Red flag: treating a lending valuation as identical to a financial reporting valuation with the addressee changed. Forgetting the repossession-and-resale angle. Forcing a figure on an unsuitable property.

Cites: Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Loan security valuation L3 descriptor (SWOT, marketability on repossession, suitability for secured lending, reasoned advice where not suitable). Red Book Global December 2024, VPGA 2 (valuations for secured lending), PS 2 section 3 (conflicts).

[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. This also feeds your valuation evidence, which the panel may probe.

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: Valuation 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 (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. Valuers inspect alone often, so this is live for you.

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 the client's interest), Rule 1.5 (honest, objective advice on reliable evidence), and Red Book PS 2 (independence and objectivity). A financial reporting valuation that users and auditors rely on makes this acute, and the public interest sits behind it.
• Action recommended: I decline to hold the figure, in writing, that day. My opinion is evidence-based and does not move to protect a covenant. I value to the date and the evidence; if the value has fallen, the figure falls. I will revisit the inputs only on the merits if I have missed evidence, not to reach a target.
• Documentation to create: a file note of the request and my refusal, a written confirmation restating the basis and the evidence, and a record of any conflict the 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, and I would consider whether the auditor needs to be aware.

Self-marking note: L3 needs the Rule cited, the action recommended, the documentation created, and the escalation path. The accounts-reliance and covenant angle tests whether you see the public interest and the auditor dimension. "I would refuse" without the documentation and escalation is only half an L3 answer.

Red flag: "I would have a quiet word and find a way to help them this year." Treating it as a favour to a good client. Missing Rule 5.9 and the auditor.

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), VPGA 1 (financial statements).

[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 on the affected asset. Assess whether this is a confidential information conflict or a party conflict under the RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement and Red Book PS 2. 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 register 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 historic and prospective-purchaser work flows into it.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the conflict types, that disclosure alone is not a cure, the informed-consent and information-barrier conditions, and a system fix. PS 2 of the Red Book reinforces the independence point for valuers specifically.

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. As a valuer I also keep current with my Registered Valuer obligations.

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.

[MODEL ANSWER - professional awareness]

• Pick one genuine issue you can speak to with depth: for example sustainability and energy disclosure pressure on valuations, currency and material valuation uncertainty in a thin market, the rise of automated valuation models, or valuer over-reliance and the duty of care in lending work.
• Explain the mechanism: how the issue feeds into rent, yield, void risk, cost, or evidence, and therefore into the figure and the 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; Red Book VPGA 8 (valuation and sustainability), 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). For a valuer, signing outside competence also engages PS 2 of the Red Book on member qualification.
• 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), the pressure, and the reporting duty are the three threads. For a Registered Valuer the competence point is especially sharp.

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. Red Book Global December 2024, PS 2 section 2 (member qualification).

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.