7. My week so far (update)

Background

You may remember this case from a previous post. If you want to revisit the original post, you can find it here.

This individual stated the following on an expert witness CV:

1. They were a Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner. In reality, they are not Chartered. They are therefore not permitted to use the title Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner.
2. Under the “Certifications” section of the CV, they described themselves as a “RICS Member” when, in fact, they are not a qualified member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) at all.

Update received from RICS

I received an email back from RICS on 30 April 2026.

The email contained just one line of information about their investigation:

“I can confirm I have contacted Mrs X and the designations have now been removed and/or corrected.”

That was it.

What happens now?

From the wording of the email, I can only assume that no further action is being taken.

This is despite the fact that:

1. Clients may have instructed this firm on the understanding that this individual was significantly more qualified than they actually were.
2. Potentially hundreds of expert witness reports may now be in circulation containing qualifications and designations that this individual does not actually hold.
3. These inaccuracies do not appear to be innocent mistakes.
4. An expert witness claiming qualifications they do not actually possess would clearly be misleading to all parties involved including the court.
5. This appears to be a very clear and very blatant breach of RICS rules.

And yet, the apparent outcome is simply that the wording has now been “corrected”.

That raises some fairly obvious questions about enforcement, accountability, and whether the current regulatory approach is acting as any real deterrent at all.