RICS APC Ethics common mistakes
RICS APC Ethics · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the five ethical standards (act honourably, act with integrity, be objective, be accountable, comply with standards) as slogans to recite, and answering scenario questions by naming the standard without explaining what the candidate would actually do differently in that situation.
Candidates memorise the standards as a list because they are short and quotable, then assume recall equals application. Scenario questions reward reasoning about conduct, not labelling.
What to do instead
For every scenario, practise writing three sentences: the specific behaviour at issue, which standard it engages and why, and the concrete action you would take (who you tell, what you document, what you decline). Drill until this structure is automatic.
Failing to disclose a conflict of interest because the candidate judges it 'not significant' or believes disclosure would seem unprofessional, and so stays silent or discloses only to a colleague rather than the appropriate party.
Candidates conflate having a conflict with wrongdoing, and fear that raising it damages their reputation. In practice the failure is almost always non-disclosure, not the conflict itself.
What to do instead
Adopt a default of disclose-and-record: write down the conflict, disclose it in writing to the client or employer and, where relevant, the other party, and record the outcome (e.g. consent, withdrawal from the instruction). Learn to state clearly that disclosure protects, not harms, objectivity.
Accepting an instruction that falls outside the candidate's competence or outside the firm's area of practice, and planning to 'learn it as I go' without telling the client.
Commercial pressure and eagerness to please make candidates overstate capability; they also assume supervision will cover the gap without checking that it exists.
What to do instead
Before accepting work, map the task against your demonstrated competence and your firm's declared services. If there is a gap, either decline, or agree in writing a scope with appropriate supervision and a named competent reviewer, and confirm this with the client before starting.
Answering questions about gifts, hospitality or inducements with a blanket 'never accept anything', rather than reasoning about purpose, value, timing and transparency.
Candidates over-correct towards absolutism to sound ethical, which shows a lack of judgment and can conflict with legitimate business practice such as modest hospitality at a networking event.
What to do instead
Practise a proportionality test: what is the intent, would it be seen as influencing a decision, is it proportionate, is it disclosed and recorded on a register, and would you be content for it to be public? Apply the test to contrasting examples so the reasoning, not the rule of thumb, becomes the answer.
Describing a whistleblowing scenario as 'report it to my manager' and stopping there, without addressing what to do if the manager is implicated or the concern is not acted on.
Candidates default to the line-management answer because it is the safest-sounding, forgetting that many concerns involve the very people in that chain.
What to do instead
Prepare an escalation ladder in advance: internal route (line manager, then a designated ethics or compliance contact, then a senior figure independent of the issue), then external routes such as the relevant regulator or a prescribed person, plus the option of seeking independent advice. Rehearse the 'what if the first route is compromised' branch every time.
Giving a generic answer about 'keeping CPD up to date' without being able to state what the candidate's own CPD record contains, how it was planned against their competence gaps, and how it maps to their pathway.
Candidates treat CPD as a box-ticking administrative task and only revisit it when the log is due, so they cannot speak to it fluently under questioning.
What to do instead
Maintain a live CPD record with a short reflective note against each entry (what I did, what I learned, how I applied it). Before the interview, review it and be ready to name two or three entries and explain the gap each addressed.
Describing a complaint, a fee dispute or a possible error without being able to say what the firm's complaints procedure is, what the candidate's own obligations are, or which regulator's rules apply.
Candidates learn procedures passively from an induction handbook and never test whether they could explain them, so under pressure they give vague answers about 'following the process'.
What to do instead
Write a one-page summary in your own words for each relevant framework: your firm's complaints procedure (stages, timescales, who handles it), your professional body's conduct and disciplinary rules, and how to notify your professional indemnity insurer of a circumstance. Then practise explaining each in 60 seconds.
Answering questions about professional indemnity insurance or regulatory registration by saying 'the firm handles that' and being unable to explain the cover, limits, or the candidate's personal position.
Candidates assume insurance and registration are back-office matters unrelated to their daily conduct, and only discover the gap when questioned.
What to do instead
Ask your firm's compliance contact for a short briefing and write a summary covering: the type of cover, whether it is claims-made, the limit, the notification obligations, and what you personally must do if you become aware of a potential claim. Be able to explain the difference between the firm's cover and any personal responsibility.
Confusing the roles of the professional body and the statutory regulator, or being unable to state which rules bind the candidate, which bind the firm, and what happens if each is breached.
The two frameworks overlap in subject matter (competence, conduct, complaints) so candidates learn them as one blur rather than as distinct regimes with different sanctions.
What to do instead
Build a two-column comparison for each framework: who it regulates, the source of its authority, the key obligations it imposes, the sanctions available, and the route for reporting a concern. Test yourself by classifying a set of scenarios into 'body rules', 'regulator rules' or 'both'.
Answering 'what would you do' questions in the abstract ('I would always act with integrity') instead of narrating a specific, first-person course of action with sequencing, communication and record-keeping.
Candidates prepare by reading standards documents, which are written in abstract language, and then mirror that register instead of converting it into behaviour. They also fear committing to a specific action in case it is 'wrong'.
What to do instead
Rehearse scenario answers aloud in a fixed format: the facts I would establish, the people I would speak to and in what order, what I would put in writing, what I would refuse to do, and how I would record the decision. Practise until a concrete first-person answer is your default, and treat a reasoned, defensible action as better than a hedged one.