What this means
Start with the exact decision in front of you.
A case that may not warrant a full hearing can be referred to a Single Member of the Regulatory Tribunal, including where allegations are not admitted. Written evidence and submissions must therefore be complete, structured and directed to the powers available on the papers.
Immediate priorities
Organise the position before responding.
Confirm the allegations and procedural direction for the paper decision
Provide a paginated record tied to each disputed issue
Address sanction, costs and publication as well as liability
Detailed guidance
The procedure, evidence and possible route from here.
01
Recognise a determinative paper process
A Single Member of the Regulatory Tribunal can determine a disciplinary case that may not warrant a full panel hearing, including a case in which allegations are not admitted. This is not an informal review of correspondence. Read the referral, procedural notice and powers carefully, and check whether the file is complete enough for a fair determination without oral evidence. Any objection to the proposed procedure should be reasoned and timely.
Identify exactly what the Single Member is asked to decide: the alleged breach, liability to disciplinary action, sanction, costs and publication may all arise. Confirm which factual issues can be determined reliably on documents and which depend on credibility, disputed expert opinion or unavailable evidence. A request for a hearing should explain the practical unfairness in the paper route rather than relying on a general preference to speak in person.
- List every issue within the referral
- Check the tribunal member's available powers
- Identify disputes unsuitable for paper determination
02
Make the written record self-contained
Prepare a paginated bundle and submissions that enable the decision-maker to trace each proposition to evidence. Include the operative standards, the complete documents needed to understand extracts, and a chronology with neutral references. Written statements should identify the maker, basis of knowledge and exhibits. Avoid burying the strongest point in an undifferentiated project archive; relevance and reliable navigation matter more than volume.
Where a technical issue is contested, explain why the professional judgment was reasonable on the information available at the time. Later outcomes do not automatically prove that an earlier judgment breached a standard. Conversely, a bare assertion that judgment was involved will not answer calculations, mandatory steps or contrary source material. Address the actual professional reasoning and any reasonable range without converting the response into advocacy unsupported by the record.
- Use stable pagination and document references
- Provide complete context for relied-on extracts
- Explain professional judgment through contemporary inputs
03
Address outcome, costs and publication
Even where liability is disputed, include a clearly separated alternative submission on sanction. Explain seriousness, consequences, previous history, cooperation, insight and any verified corrective action relevant under the current policy. This does not require conceding the allegation. It ensures that a paper decision is not made on outcome without the member's evidence and submissions if the Single Member reaches an adverse finding.
Ask for the written reasons and retain the full material placed before the decision-maker. Check the rules for any appeal or review and when the order takes effect; do not infer a deadline from another tribunal. Costs and publication can have lasting effects on practice and should be checked immediately. If the decision misstates the agreed record, preserve the discrepancy and obtain advice on the available corrective route.
- Make an alternative sanction submission
- Request and preserve the complete decision
- Check effect, costs and challenge route immediately
Key questions
Keep the analysis tied to this stage.
Whether the allegations are proved on the documents
Whether a paper determination is procedurally fair
What disciplinary order and costs are proportionate
Advice is provided only by the regulated firm that accepts a matter.
Common questions
Clarifying the route without assuming the outcome.
Can a Single Member expel an RICS member?
The available powers are governed by the current Regulatory Tribunal Rules and referral. Check those powers rather than assuming a paper route is limited to minor sanctions.
Can I ask for an oral hearing?
A request may be possible, but it should identify why the case cannot fairly be decided on the papers under the applicable directions and rules.
Connected guidance
Continue through the topic map.
Use the hub for the full sequence or choose the connected route that matches the notice.
Official sources
Check the material for this question.
Sources checked 19 September 2026. Rules change, so compare the current notice and linked official material and tell the operator if a citation or summary needs correction.