APC competency: what to do if you’re referred

Receiving an APC referral report is, understandably, a very disappointing experience. Some candidates will know that they did not pass, but for others it will come as a shock. Whether considerately written or not, there is no joy in reading a list of errors or deficiencies. But, if there is a silver lining, it does provide feedback and forms the basis for further preparation. Next steps It may be of little solace, but the rules governing assessment have changed, and candidates do not have to state that they have been previously referred. Panels do not see referral reports, and each assessment is treated as a “first time”. The key, therefore, is for candidates to undertake a critical assessment of their own performance together with any guidance provided in the referral report. Referral reports are written to justify and support a decision – and therefore may come across as “nit picking”. However, RICS guidance dictates that every relevant point should be included. Some points may sound minor but most referrals, and many passes, are marginal; too many minor points may add up to an overall referral. Other than ethics, rules of conduct and professionalism – which is the only mandatory level 3 competency in the APC – the APC interview is judged holistically, so an incorrect answer is not always an automatic referral. Reasons for referral Common reasons for referral include: Failure to demonstrate level 3 competence; Too narrow or too little a range of experience (level 2); Lack of level 1 knowledge; or Poor presentation (documents and verbal) interview technique. Addressing these in turn, level 3 reasoned advice and depth of understanding is based on strong technical knowledge (level 1), and a common shortcoming is that candidates just don’t know, or cannot remember, the background and rationale to a particular point. For example, one candidate declared level 3 leasing/letting and was then unable to articulate the process and justification for undertaking outside-the-Act lettings in which they had been involved. They had been doing the lettings (level 2/3), but could not provide a level 1 answer as to why. Time and again, level 3 competencies are let down by incorrect or inadequate level 1 knowledge or understanding. If this applies to you, critically assess your level 1 knowledge and consider what the referral reports says. Don’t forget that when you resit, a different panel may ask different questions. Another common reason for referral is where candidates have narrow and often very strong competence, but are weak when questioned outside their specialism. This is more common in pathways such as property finance and investment, where candidates are often spreadsheet modelling experts but lack the broader experience required for that pathway. Keep in mind that a level 3 competence may be assessed in less than three minutes. If a candidate is clearly very strong in a competence, assessors often move on to explore other areas. Unfortunately, candidates do not get to spend 60 minutes on their strongest area. Many candidates add in a couple of competencies on which they know they are weak. As a panel chair, I am always supportive if an assessor spends a little extra time drilling down into an area of perceived weakness, especially if it is valuation. Candidates should critically assess their range of experience and, together with their counsellor/supervisor, consider whether they need a rotation or secondment to gain greater breadth or depth of experience. It is also important for candidates to consider whether they are being given enough responsibility in their role, since level 3 requires reasoned advice. For candidates who are not client-facing or writing internal recommendations, this needs to be addressed. Having level 3 experience and being able to articulate it in the rapid-paced, stressful environment of the interview is a completely different matter. Key to this is being able to demonstrate providing reasoned advice and depth of understanding, which is a technique that relies on analysis based on technical knowledge – not just the “what”, but also the “why.” Level 3 is usually about options and problems, and a matter on which a client (internal or external) needs advice – typically a recommendation or professional opinion. Candidates should remember they are knocking on that interview panel door as a chartered surveyor, and it is solely down to the candidate and their preparation whether they walk out as one. Another thought is that assessors expect candidates to be developed sufficiently that tomorrow they could go out and set up their own company and deliver the range of services their pathway dictates. If a candidate chooses to resit, they should not forget to: Check the case study work is not out of date. It must be based on work undertaken within 24 months of submission; Ensure that their ethics certificate is issued within 12 months of submission; and Keep CPD ongoing against the normal quota requirements until the next assessment. Appeal? Given that many referrals are marginal, an obvious query is “should I appeal?”. First, ask yourself what would you achieve by appealing, especially now there is no mention of a referral on any paperwork. Candidates should get a reassessment within three months rather than waiting six months for the next session and will not have to pay the £275 reassessment fee. They would have to pay a £100 appeal fee. In terms of the appeal itself, candidates cannot appeal simply because they disagree with the assessors’ decision about their competence. The appeal panel does not question the merits of the assessors’ decision. It looks at the way the final assessment was conducted, and will allow the appeal only if, on the balance of probabilities, there was fault in the process. It does not reach any conclusion about the candidate’s competence to practise: it considers only administrative or procedural matters. Focus: rules of conduct & professional ethics Five ethical principles: #4 – point of view We all have a different point of view. However, what needs to be understood within the five global ethical professional standards that the RICS promotes, is a standard collective viewpoint that, should a client engage one chartered surveyor or another, they should receive the same professional service and ethical stance. Not all candidates fully appreciate their ethical responsibilities and can be influenced by many factors. There is a near-constant flow of new regulations, published codes of practice and standards and renewing of thinking or changes in the industry market, landscape or environment, which require our attention and interpretation. So, while it is OK to be yourself, you will be expected to follow the rules and regulations relevant to your sphere of work. Ethically, when we are making the right decision, it is important that it is founded on our right and proper knowledge and experience. Failure to do so may lead to unprofessional situations, negligence and, worst case, loss of your hard-earned charter. This links closely to CPD requirements and planning and monitoring your required learning to professionally deliver the service you offer. Resources RICS Rules of Conduct  DeLever Network; instant APC messaging and the facility to ask a question of APC experts  Masterclass recordings on rules of conduct and ethics (formal CPD)  Mock interviews, final assessment and presentation masterclasses  Commercial Property Quick Start Revision Guide  DeLever myAPCDiary  Pre-submission document reviews or post-submission APC iSpy final assessment question finder services  Click on the links below to read the other features in this series: Submission possible: how to wow the APC assessors APC competency: fixing for final assessment APC: negotiating the final hurdle APC competency: starting out on your journey Ralph Charlwood FRICS is a DeLever APC expert coach, mock interview assessor and RICS APC assessor and chair