The Tribunal found both allegations proved on the balance of probabilities. It found that Mr Ferguson knowingly submitted a claim to Laka/Zurich for the theft of the Topstone when that bike was not covered by the Policy and then amended the Policy after the theft in an attempt to create the appearance of cover. The Tribunal rejected Mr Ferguson’s evidence that he genuinely believed the Policy operated as a multi-bike or value-based policy. It found that his conduct was dishonest by the standards set out in Ivey, lacked integrity, undermined public trust in him and in the profession, and amounted to an attempt to mislead his insurers, in breach of the Principles and Code as alleged.

The Tribunal considered the mitigation advanced on Mr Ferguson’s behalf, including his personal circumstances, lack of previous disciplinary findings, good character, employer support, absence of repetition and evidence as to low risk of recurrence. It accepted that he was not inherently dishonest but concluded that the circumstances relied upon did not sufficiently relate to, or explain, the dishonest conduct and did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal found that the dishonesty was not momentary but continued over a period during which Mr Ferguson had opportunities to correct the position and tell the truth. It determined that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike Mr Ferguson off the Roll and ordered him to pay the Applicant’s costs in full in the sum of £20,757.00.