Professional Conduct Hearings can result in five possible outcomes:
Complaint not upheld
Based on the evidence that the Professional Conduct Panel was presented with and the work it has seen the complaint is not upheld. We do not publish details of such inquiries unless the Member who was the Subject of the complaint specifically requests it.
The Member receives a reprimand with advice
The Professional Conduct Panel upholds the complaint and makes the Member aware that, based on the evidence presented and the work it has seen, their professional practice has fallen short of the standard required. The Professional Conduct Panel is satisfied that the Member is normally competent with respect to the work they undertake but may provide some advice as to future work.
The Member receives a reprimand with sanctions
The Professional Conduct Panel upholds the complaint and makes the Member aware that, based on the evidence presented and/or the work it has seen, their professional practice has fallen significantly short of the standard required. The Professional Conduct Panel can impose a range of sanctions proportionate to the seriousness of the breach. Typically, a Panel may require the Member to complete training within a specified time frame. If the sanction is not met to the Panel’s satisfaction it may recommend further sanctions.
Downgrading of the Member’s status
The Professional Conduct Panel upholds the complaint and, based on the Panel members serious concerns about the standard of work and conduct, recommends that the Member’s membership status and/or chartered status is downgraded to a category more appropriate for the level of competence demonstrated.
Exclusion from CIEEM
The Member is excluded from the Institute for a specified period of time. Re-application for membership can be made after this period has elapsed.
We publish the outcomes of recent Professional Conduct Hearings in accordance with our Professional Conduct Inquiries Publications Policy.
Complaints update: breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct
At a hearing held on 28 February 2019, Mrs Olivia Collingwood ACIEEM was found to be in breach of Clause 4 of the Code of Professional Conduct, having failed to take sufficient action regarding the quality assurance of ecological reports and the evidence base for the conclusions and recommendations within them. Mrs Collingwood has been reprimanded with advice.
At a hearing on the 28th February 2019 Mr Chris Cullen ACIEEM was found to be in breach of clause 5 of the Code of Professional Conduct having demonstrated a lapse of judgement in not managing a conflict of interest appropriately. Mr Cullen has bene given a reprimand.
At a hearing on the 28th February 2019 Mr Howard Williams CEnv MCIEEM was found to be in breach of clauses 4 and 5 of the Code of professional Conduct having a) failed to meet the required good practice standard in bat survey and reporting and b) demonstrated a lapse of judgement in not managing a conflict of interest appropriately. Mr Williams has been given a reprimand with advice.