RICS Ethics Test common mistakes
RICS Ethics Test · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the ethics test as a general knowledge quiz and answering from personal opinion about what is 'fair' rather than applying the specific rule that governs the scenario (e.g., deciding a disclosed conflict is acceptable because the member acted honestly).
Candidates come from practice backgrounds where judgement is intuitive, and the exam deliberately tests whether you can identify the applicable rule and apply it mechanically. Personal-reasonableness answers feel right but miss the rule being tested.
What to do instead
For every scenario, first name the rule category before choosing an answer: conflict of interest, confidentiality, competence, integrity, or public interest. Then ask which answer is consistent with that rule even if it feels harsh. If two answers both seem ethical, choose the one that matches the rule's explicit requirement rather than the more sympathetic outcome.
Confusing the duty to act in the public interest with a duty to act in the client's interest, and choosing the client-favouring answer when the two conflict (for example, withholding a material defect to complete a sale).
Most candidates spend their working lives serving clients and internalise client loyalty as the primary obligation. The exam tests that public interest and honesty override client instructions where they conflict, which cuts against that habit.
What to do instead
Memorise the hierarchy: honesty and integrity first, then public interest, then client and employer. In any scenario where the client's instruction would require misleading a third party or concealing something material, the correct answer is the one that refuses or discloses, not the one that maximises client advantage.
Answering confidentiality questions by treating all information as disclosable once a client or employer has mentioned it, or conversely refusing to disclose when there is a legal or public-interest obligation to do so.
Candidates over-generalise from either extreme: 'confidentiality is absolute' or 'if they told me, I can share it'. The exam tests the exceptions (legal requirement, court order, prevention of crime, serious public risk, consent) and the duty to disclose only to the appropriate recipient.
What to do instead
Build a short mental list of the recognised exceptions and apply them explicitly: is there consent, a legal obligation, a court order, or a serious public-interest risk? If none applies, the default is non-disclosure. If one applies, disclose only the minimum necessary to the right person, not broadly.
Missing that a conflict of interest can be latent or perceived, and only flagging conflicts where the member has already personally benefited or where the conflict is obvious to a layperson.
Candidates look for actual bias or financial gain and overlook the earlier trigger point: a relationship, gift, secondary interest, or personal connection that could reasonably be seen to influence judgement. The exam frequently sets the conflict before any harm has occurred.
What to do instead
Screen every scenario for the three conflict types: actual, potential, and perceived. Ask 'would a reasonable observer with the facts think judgement could be affected?' If yes, the answer is declare and manage (or decline), regardless of whether any benefit has yet arisen. Declare early, in writing, to the right party.
Choosing to 'report internally and take no further action' when the internal route has already failed, is compromised, or the matter involves the person you would report to, instead of escalating to the appropriate external or regulatory body.
Candidates default to internal escalation because it feels safer and less disloyal. The exam tests whether you recognise when internal channels are exhausted or inappropriate and whether you know the regulator or prescribed body is the next step.
What to do instead
Learn the escalation ladder and its triggers: raise internally first where appropriate; escalate externally when the concern is serious, the internal route has been exhausted or is compromised, or there is a legal or regulatory reporting duty. Identify in advance which body receives which type of concern so you can select the correct recipient under time pressure.
Answering competence questions by saying the member should 'do their best' or 'learn on the job' rather than declining work outside their competence or obtaining proper supervision and specialist advice.
Candidates want to appear helpful and commercially flexible, and 'I would research it' sounds like a reasonable professional response. The exam tests that you must not accept work you are not competent to perform and that the fix is supervision, referral, or declining, not self-teaching on a live instruction.
What to do instead
Treat competence as a threshold, not an aspiration. If the scenario shows a knowledge or experience gap, the correct answer involves disclosing the limit to the client, bringing in a competent specialist or supervisor, or declining the instruction. Reject any option that amounts to unsupervised on-the-job learning at the client's expense.
Overlooking record-keeping and evidence obligations, such as failing to document advice given, declarations made, or concerns raised, and choosing answers that rely on memory or verbal assurances.
Candidates focus on the decision itself and treat documentation as administrative detail. The exam tests that contemporaneous written records are part of the ethical obligation because they evidence that the duty was met.
What to do instead
Whenever an answer involves a declaration, a concern, a refusal, or advice, prefer the option that includes a written record made at the time. If two options are ethically equivalent, the one with documented, contemporaneous evidence is the correct one. Treat 'I would mention it verbally' as a distractor.
Misreading the actor in the scenario, answering as if the question asks what the organisation should do when it actually asks what the individual member should do, or vice versa.
Scenario stems are long and role labels (member, firm, client, employer) appear early and are easy to lose. Candidates then pick a correct-sounding action taken by the wrong party, which is marked wrong.
What to do instead
Before reading the options, underline who the question is about and what they are being asked to do. Re-read the final sentence of the stem twice. Eliminate any option that is a valid action but attributed to the wrong actor, even if the substance is right.
Treating gifts and hospitality as acceptable whenever the value is small, without assessing purpose, timing, and the risk of influencing a decision in progress.
Candidates apply a simple monetary threshold and ignore context. The exam tests that even modest hospitality can be improper if offered during a live procurement, valuation, or decision, or if it creates a sense of obligation.
What to do instead
Assess hospitality on four factors, not value alone: purpose, timing relative to a decision, whether it could create obligation, and whether it would withstand public scrutiny. If any factor fails, decline or declare. When in doubt, the answer that declares and seeks approval beats the answer that quietly accepts.
Assuming that because a concern was reported, the reporter's obligation is discharged, and failing to follow up, keep records, or escalate when no action is taken.
Candidates see reporting as a single act rather than a process with continuing responsibility. The exam tests that a reporter must take reasonable steps to ensure the concern is addressed and must escalate if it is ignored.
What to do instead
Treat reporting as a sequence: raise it in writing, record the response, allow a reasonable time for action, then escalate if nothing happens. Choose answers that include follow-up and a documented trail, and reject options that end at 'reported it and left it there'.