Definition

In an APC context, client feedback means the systematic collection, recording, and use of clients' views on the quality of the service provided. It covers formal mechanisms such as post-instruction questionnaires and structured review meetings, as well as informal channels such as telephone conversations and email correspondence. The key requirement is that feedback is acted upon and that the outcomes are documented.

Why this matters for Client Care

  • Level 2 knowledge: you must be able to explain how your firm or you personally collect and act on client feedback, with a practical example from your APC diary.
  • The RICS Rules of Conduct Rule 3 (Service) requires members to provide a good standard of service; feedback is the primary mechanism for identifying service gaps.
  • Demonstrating that feedback has led to a change in practice shows the assessor that the candidate treats client care as a continuous process, not a one-off obligation.
  • Dissatisfied clients who have no feedback mechanism are more likely to escalate concerns into formal complaints; early feedback reduces that risk.

Key principles

Formal feedback channels

Structured feedback mechanisms include post-instruction client satisfaction surveys (typically sent within a week of the instruction concluding), annual client review meetings for ongoing relationships, and 360-degree feedback exercises run by the firm. Surveys should be brief — five to seven questions is sufficient — and should include at least one open-ended question that allows the client to raise concerns not anticipated by the surveyor. Results should be recorded and reported to the practice’s leadership team.

Informal feedback channels

Informal feedback arises throughout an instruction: a client who says "thanks, that was very clear" or "I wasn’t sure what the report meant in section four" is providing feedback. Candidates should develop the habit of noting this feedback in their diary or instruction file. A brief follow-up call at the mid-point of a long instruction — asking whether the client has any concerns — is a straightforward way to surface problems early.

Acting on feedback and closing the loop

Collecting feedback without acting on it has no professional value. When a client identifies a weakness, the surveyor should: acknowledge the point, explain what action will be taken, and then confirm in writing that the action has been completed. For recurring themes, the firm should update its processes or training.

Feedback and CPD

Client feedback is a valid input to a surveyor's continuing professional development (CPD) plan. Identifying skill or knowledge gaps through feedback, then addressing those gaps through training or reading, is a closed-loop process that RICS expects members to follow.

Relevant RICS guidance and legislation

  • RICS Rules of Conduct (effective 2 February 2022) — Rule 3 requires members and firms to provide a good standard of service and respond promptly to clients.
  • RICS “Complaints handling” professional standard — requires regulated firms to operate a complaints procedure; proactive feedback collection is the upstream equivalent that prevents complaints arising.
  • Consumer Rights Act 2015 — services must be performed with reasonable care and skill; client feedback provides evidence that the standard has been met or identifies where it has fallen short.
  • RICS standard form terms of appointment — many standard forms include provisions for client review meetings, making feedback a contractual as well as a regulatory expectation.

Ethics and Rules of Conduct angle

Rule 3 requires members to provide a good standard of service and be responsive to clients. Client feedback is the mechanism through which a surveyor discovers whether they are meeting that standard in practice. Rule 1 is also engaged: a surveyor who receives negative feedback but fails to disclose it when relevant to a quality or risk matter is not acting with integrity.

APC-style Q&As

Q (Level 1)What is the purpose of collecting client feedback as a surveying professional?

Client feedback identifies whether the service provided has met the client’s expectations and flags any gaps in quality, communication, or delivery. It supports continuous improvement, underpins the obligation to provide a good standard of service under Rule 3 of the RICS Rules of Conduct, and can prevent dissatisfaction from escalating into a formal complaint.

Q (Level 1)Give two examples of formal and two examples of informal feedback mechanisms a surveyor might use.

Formal mechanisms include post-instruction satisfaction surveys and structured annual client review meetings. Informal mechanisms include a mid-instruction check-in call and noting verbal comments made by the client during site visits or at the point of report delivery.

Q (Level 2)How would you ensure that client feedback leads to an actual improvement in service rather than just being recorded and forgotten?

After receiving feedback I would acknowledge it to the client, identify the root cause, and agree a specific action with a deadline. I would then confirm completion of that action in writing to the client, closing the loop. For themes across several instructions I would raise them with my supervisor and recommend a process change or training.

Q (Level 2)A client tells you informally that they found your reports too technical and hard to follow. How do you respond?

I would thank the client, ask for a specific example so I understand what was unclear, and review that section with fresh eyes. I would agree with the client how future reports should be structured — for example, using a plain-English executive summary — and apply that change immediately. I would note the feedback in my diary and add it to my CPD log as a prompt to improve written communication.

Q (Level 3)Your firm’s post-instruction surveys consistently show that clients rate “speed of response to queries” below three out of five. As a senior associate, how do you address this at both individual and firm level?

(example) I would analyse the data by team, service line and period, then raise the findings at a team meeting, presenting the pattern anonymously and inviting colleagues to identify the cause. At firm level I would propose a service standard, for example acknowledging all client queries within four working hours, with a holding reply if a full answer is not yet possible. I would also recommend building the metric into individuals’ annual appraisal targets so that response times are tracked. I would re-run the survey six months later to measure whether the change had the intended effect.