Tuesday 19 September 2017
Below is a summary of matters that have come before the Board in recent months.
Survey Practice
Case 1
The Board received information from DNRM about the survey practices of a consulting cadastral surveyor. The Board appointed an investigator to review four surveys to determine if there was any evidence of professional misconduct. After receiving the investigator’s report the Board commenced professional conduct disciplinary proceedings against the surveyor in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).
The disciplinary charges before QCAT addressed the following issues:
- failure to adequately search for cadastral evidence
- failure to adequately search for physical evidence
- failure to adequately reinstate existing cadastral boundaries
- failure to adequately mark existing cadastral boundaries
- failure to adequately prepare plans suitable for Government Land Registries
- failure to use adequate redundant measurements to validate data
- failure to standardise survey instrument
During the QCAT process the surveyor agreed to cancel his consulting endorsement and only perform cadastral surveys under the supervision of a nominated consulting cadastral surveyor, and to contribute to the Board’s costs of the investigation.
Case 2
The Board received an official complaint from DNRM concerning the professional practices of a surveying corporation and the failure to address the error on a plan when advised. The initial evidence before the Board was that a cadastral survey:
- was not completed in compliance with survey standards
- relied on limited cadastral evidence
- failed to connect to available occupation and reference marks
- left duplicate corner marks (original and new)
The Board appointed an investigator to identify what survey marks and evidence were in the field and if those marks were accurately located. Following the investigation, the matter was referred to a Professional Conduct Review Panel (PCRP). The PCRP found two of the four charges were proven. A fine and costs order was imposed.
Case 3
The Board received information regarding possible unprofessional conduct by a surveying corporation which indicated that a plan had been signed with an OPM over 13m away from the position shown. A number of other subsequent plans had been certified and lodged containing the same incorrect reference to the PSM. Following investigation, the matter was referred to a PCRP. The PCRP found the charges were proven. A fine and costs order was imposed.
Case 4
The Board received information from DNRM about the survey practices of a corporation with consulting and cadastral endorsements. The issue of concern to the Board was that marks as listed on the plan had not been placed. The Board appointed an investigator and it was confirmed that marks had not been placed. The Board required the surveyor to return and place all marks as listed on the plan.
Case 5
The Board received information that indicated that a consulting cadastral surveyor had represented the work of another surveyor as his own. The Board appointed an investigator regarding the possible unprofessional conduct and breaches of the code of practice. After receiving the investigator’s report the Board commenced professional conduct disciplinary proceedings via a PCRP. The charges were proven and the surveyor ordered to pay the costs of the investigation.
Cadastral surveys by non-cadastral surveyors
Case 1
The Board received information from a cadastral surveyor that indicated that cadastral surveys were being performed by a surveying graduate without the supervision of a registered cadastral surveyor. The Board appointed an investigator to determine if there was evidence of cadastral surveys being performed by the surveying graduate for a fee. The investigator found significant evidence that the surveying graduate was performing cadastral surveys for a fee. The Board initiated disciplinary charges for professional misconduct and the matter was heard by the PCRP. The charges were found to be proved and a fine and costs order was imposed. The surveying graduate lodged an appeal with QCAT. QCAT upheld the Board’s decision and ordered the fine and costs be paid.
Case 2
The Board received information that a surveying associate was carrying on a business providing cadastral surveying services to the public when not a consulting cadastral surveyor. While the surveying associate had an arrangement with a consulting cadastral surveyor, clients were generally sourced by the associate who dealt with the client and then performed the survey. The Board appointed an independent investigator to determine if there was evidence a cadastral surveying business was being operated by the surveying associate. Following investigation, the matter was referred to a PCRP. The PCRP found the charges were proven. A costs order was imposed.