ICAS bans member for CPD non-compliance

A London-based ICAS member has been expelled from the Institute and ordered to pay costs of £3,500 for professional misconduct.

Kenneth Neison was found guilty of CPD non-compliance at a disciplinary tribunal on 8 May 2012.

He admitted that he failed to comply with his obligations as a chartered accountant to undertake...

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

Pages

CPD non compliance

markshgate | | Permalink

Whilst this is an essential part of a chartered accountant's continual education, I wonder what the regulations are for other professions, and how many practising doctors, dentists, solicitors, barristers, surveyors, architects, chartered tax advisers, and other qualified accountants have been excluded.

Indeed, how many chartered accountatants have suffered this fate if any?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPD Non Compliance    1 thanks

thabib | | Permalink

Whilst important it just shows that the institute has no appreciation of reality. I am sure it would have been more sensible for him to remain within the institute as he will have worked very hard to achieve this in the first place rather than being treated so poorly. There are many much more serious offences that are punished relatively lightly.

nigelburge's picture

??????????????????????????????    2 thanks

nigelburge | | Permalink

George Gretton wrote:

Kenneth Nelson is well out of the ICAEW, as I will be after the IBD case explodes. He has my unqualified SUPPORT.

He was never a member of ICAEW!

If an ICAS member refuses to do any CPD, what else are they supposed to do? (**Mutters to himself and shakes head**)

continuing CDP - where's the problem?    2 thanks

TaxMatters | | Permalink

How would you feel if you found out that your doctor felt there was no need for him to keep up to date? I would add a little to Markshgate's comment. There are so many so called accountants out there who set up what looks like a practise and acquire clients without having to go through all the admin ICVAEW members have to go through. I know of one chain of franchised "accountants" who shall remain nameless but they will accept just about anybody. They have even set up a used car dealer as an accountant - Can you believe it? How about the Institute putting some work into driving the cowboys out instead of tuning a blind eye to it? We who have studied and worked our way up are disadvantaged because they can ignore the rules we have to follow and save hours of administration per assignment not to mention questions about quality.

nigelburge's picture

Why?    1 thanks

nigelburge | | Permalink

George Gretton wrote:

an Asian man, was an ICAS member; he actually threw me out of his office; 

What did you do to merit that? Do tell! ☺

Harsh, but    2 thanks

brianheg | | Permalink

If accountants are getting chucked out for not doing any CPD I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head whose days are numbered, so I have some sympathy. However, when ICAS queried it, why did he not just go and do some CPD? Note that he wasn't expelled for several years after the initial offence, so I can't for the life of me understand why he didn't just go on a few courses.

If your attitude to the rules is that they don't apply to you, then you're asking to be made an example of.

CPD

Zulf1kar | | Permalink

I dont understand if you are no longer a member then why (and to whom) would you pay the 3,500 fine for misconduct?.

An ICAS spokesperson said    1 thanks

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

An ICAS spokesperson said they couldn't comment.

 I greatly admire ICAS, from which I have retired on grounds of age, but a spokesperson  who couldn't comment does have a certain Sir Humphrey flavour to it.

by laws?

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Zulf1kar wrote:

I dont understand if you are no longer a member then why (and to whom) would you pay the 3,500 fine for misconduct?.

By laws....anyone know how these work.....contract law?

Wonder if they could Persue? If you refused?

and is this penalty disproportionate? to the crime? Crime?

hoisted by his

own pethard ? too honest to lie that he had done his CPD?

Soapbox time!    2 thanks

secondhand_22 | | Permalink

Couple of things:

 

- As far as I can see, other professional bodies (particularly medical ones) act to protect members first and the public last.  Accountancy bodies seem right at the other end of the spectrum - actively persecuting members for little things - and charging an awful lot for the privilege.  I think the right position is somewhere in the middle.

 

- I also think Institutes' time would be better spent campaigning for a 'closed shop' in accountancy - or at least seeking protection for the term "accountant".  At the very least, the latter might help the public differentiate between those who have qualified and may be competent from those who have never known much more than debits and credits and probably never will.

 

Ok, I'll shut up now!

Continuing CDP - where's the problem    1 thanks

Donald6000 | | Permalink

I am always very suspicious when I come across stories, whereby one accuses someone else of something, as if to saw, as members of ICAEW we have observed its "them", not "us".

In fact, unqualified accountants can be capable of extremely high standards of practice and of extremely high moral and ethical standards. Some members of professional bodies can descend to fraud,. unethical behaviour and immorality.

All of which cases, I suspect would make more sense as an observation, rather than one group name-calling another.

Giles M's picture

Qualified or unqualified    2 thanks

Giles M | | Permalink

I just wanted to say that, distinguishing between advisers based on the letters after their name is, in my experience, not a good idea.

Some of the best questions I get asked on courses are from 'unqualified' advisers and some of the worst are from qualified advisers.

Three years ago I was asked by a delegate who was an FCA and CTA why I insisted on calling 'indexation' 'entrepreneurs relief'. After a brief discussion he admitted that the move (we didn't worry about taper relief) had 'passed him by'. Bizarrely he went on to say that he only attended one course a year as they didn't help him do his job (his business card said he was a leader in all personal tax issues).

For obvious reasons I won't comment on whether people should be doing CPD, I'll simply say that, the letters after your name aren't the end of the story and, for many, they aren't even the beginning of a very successful story.  

CPD

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Wholeheartedly in favour of CPD. Always done much more than required.

I like going on courses but most of my day is spent doing CPD. either looking something up I find I already knew or dealing with a change or explaining the ins and outs to a member of staff and supporting it with the legislation, guidance and case law so they can be better than me.

Compulsory CPD? evidenced by more ownerous form filling and box ticking? That's a different matter. The proficient at box ticking will be seen to be good and those exercising free thought and professional judgement bad boys.... Sounds like an audit where it is more important to provide a neat file for the JMU than actually spot anything.

Expelled for it? Well that's just ridiculous?

I am not in favour of over regulation or religious Zelots!...."Stone him" "are there any women here?" "Noooo no no"

I would prefer to see the accountancy bodies (real ones) raising standards and supporting good members.

The ICAEW and the ACCA should realise that the general public do not know the difference between a qualified accountant and a non accountant., or a good or bad accountant.

I once worked for an audit partner who knew bugger all about anything and viewed CPD as an afternoon off to have a snooze, evidenced by him not knowing any of the basic points a few days later. CPD form was perfect though.

Standards of work from qualified firms is not brilliant but work we have seen from unqualified providers has to be seen to be believed.

letters    2 thanks

The Black Knight | | Permalink

George Gretton wrote:

I agree with Giles; the letters after a person's name MAY have some relevance, but that person's personal qualities are immesurably more important. Many dishonest people seek qualifications (or bogus qualifications) purely to give them opportunities to abuse people.

The letters mean that:

1, you have studied the subject and passed some nasty exams

2, you have the relevant practical experience.

3,you are subject to a draconian disciplinary regime as evidenced above.So the client can complain.

4, you have PI cover. So the client can sue

5, You are expected to maintain your professional competence...otherwise go back to 3 and read again

6, Integrity and objectivity as standard or return to point 3

7,If you have a practising certificate the above points 2 to 6  are sliver plated.

George. the dishonest do not need the qualifications, they can just use the letters anyway or make some up themselves or just tell people they are accountants or qualified accountants or used to be qualified but don't use the badge anymore for what ever lame reason con's the client. Laughable really when the client chooses a dodgy accountant because they are a dodgy accountant and a cheap accountant because he is a cheap accountant.

Compared with the unqualified (whether good, nice, smiley or otherwise)

1, no need for exams or books

2, no need for relevant practical experience.

3,no disciplinary regime - no one to complain to

4,no cpd requirement

5,well you didn't have to do points 1 to 4 so what would be the point?

6,don't understand what those mean, I go to church does that help?

7,that's just a badge and I don't agree with them because I once met a bad accountant with letters and everything. He made me pay some tax I didn't agree with! and I will never trust a man in a suit!

 

 

@Giles

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Giles M wrote:

I just wanted to say that, distinguishing between advisers based on the letters after their name is, in my experience, not a good idea.

Some of the best questions I get asked on courses are from 'unqualified' advisers and some of the worst are from qualified advisers.

Three years ago I was asked by a delegate who was an FCA and CTA why I insisted on calling 'indexation' 'entrepreneurs relief'. After a brief discussion he admitted that the move (we didn't worry about taper relief) had 'passed him by'. Bizarrely he went on to say that he only attended one course a year as they didn't help him do his job (his business card said he was a leader in all personal tax issues).

For obvious reasons I won't comment on whether people should be doing CPD, I'll simply say that, the letters after your name aren't the end of the story and, for many, they aren't even the beginning of a very successful story.  

How do you know who's qualified and who's not? LOL

I always assumed that the Doh! questions were from the unqualified but perhaps it is me being biased there.

I would say the knowledge breaks down before double entry with the unqualified and after with the qualified?

Can't believe one of your students had missed out on taper relief completely? Perhaps that now appears in all his corporate disposal calculations? LOL

He was I bet giving his clients the right answers (those they wanted to hear) and was probably successful because of it. HMRC will have never noticed so did it really make any difference?

I will think up a really good question for you! and you won't know when it's coming! LOL

nigelburge's picture

I am sorry I asked him now!    2 thanks

nigelburge | | Permalink

royogston wrote:

I had a look at his so called "model" accounts of Mizzbrazil, the accountants report is a joke, the ramblings of someone with an over inflated ego. The balance sheet does not show the share capital yet somehow balances, page 7 states that "all stock, fixtures and fittings had been sold" yet this is not reflected on the fixed asset note 5 on page 8 where the cost of fixtures & fittings are still shown.

The best bit is no share capital on the balance sheet, but £2 showing in the notes - but then perhaps it is "rounding"!!

Tom 7000's picture

All a bit odd    2 thanks

Tom 7000 | | Permalink

Fundamentally, as I see it a qualified accountant has revealed the name of a client and published his clients accounts on a public website.  I hope he had his permission otherwise I fear this is a breach of his institutes byelaws and he is leaving himself open to disciplinary proceedings.

 

Then he sems to state that another firm of accountants are incompetent. Drat, I always get mixed up is that libel or Slander?

 

As I recall I spent 3,500 hours studying to pass accountancy exams. I did get 94% in the accounts exam at PE 1 as it was then called - so it was worth it. Although, I wait for the calls of incompetence as there was 6% I appear not to have known! To this day I disagree with the examiners, I cant see how it wasnt 100%. How on earth can anyone say an unqualified accountant knows as much as me is simply bizarre.

 

In terms of CPD, the rules move all the time. You have to stay on top of the changes otherwise you will be giving the clients incorrect advice. To say that you dont need to learn the new rules and not do any CPD.... well yes you should be chucked out of the institute and fined , but not for omittng to do the CPD but for being so stupid you didnt realise this.

Am I the only one here bemused by this discussion?

 

Defamation

The Black Knight | | Permalink

it's defamation: slander being verbal, libel being written?

@George you could write what ever you like in your accountants report or the directors report. But I would stick to the standard wording as you are not expressing an opinion on the accounts (unless it's an audit).

If there were problems with the previous years accounts I would have used a prior year adjustment and note to explain this.

It is back in 2005 so I don't suppose anyone would be interested in the correction, and I would take down the accounts.

 

nigelburge's picture

Odd indeed.    1 thanks

nigelburge | | Permalink

Tom 7000 wrote:

Am I the only one here bemused by this discussion?

Nope - it has become somewhat surreal - Good old AWeb!!

CPD and all that    1 thanks

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

Just a point, but wasn't the "fine" actually costs?

Despite my facetious post above, I was  always grateful that I could claim membership of something I could be trhown out of.  I always found ICAs supportive of their members. I can't believe this gentleman's expulsion and fine came out of the blue, they are not HMRC.. We are not told, presumably because the correspondence is not public, 

 

Anyway, I'm retired now.  

 

 

 

 

Unfair competition ?    1 thanks

TaxMatters | | Permalink

This thread started originally to discuss the appropriateness of CPD but it does appear to be attracting a number of comments about whether the Institute(s) are doing what I personally believe is their job. Members of the Institute are people who have studied hard and worked consistently to carve out a place in society which commands respect. Why do our institute(s) not at least make some effort to afford us protection from the cowboys who take advantage of the respect we have earned? One contributor suggested that the term accountant should be protected! Agreed! So why isn't it? Several contributors have drawn attention to the rules and regulations we have to follow but the unqualified person can simply duck. The additional cost we have to bear as a result of close regulation cannot to be ignored.  If the client is unable to judge the difference between those offering accounting services he will choose on price. I am not suggesting price regulation but the institute(s) should move forward to enable the client to be able to clearly differentiate between accountants and non-accountants.

Why...    1 thanks

andy.mclellan | | Permalink

... did you feel the need to point out one of the Professional Accountant was of Asian decent.  You never mentioned the other was Anglo-Saxon or whatever.

re Why

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

Things were worse in the old days. In the City of London practice where I was an apprenctice (In ICAS that's what we were called in 1960, even in a London office), the phrase "of Asian descent"  would not have been used, and the phrase which was used (not by me) would have been illegal now, and righly so. Nor would "of the Jewish faith". 

And these were educated at the most expensive public schools in the land, and holding positions of authority. Some things change for the better.

 

(And by the way, you wouldn't be of Caledonian descent would you?)

 

Formal CPD had not been invented. (returning to the thread).  But you were expected to do it. There were no cheap courses such as CCH and others put on now. ICAS did, and still do, put on excellent courses  to help smaller practice.Anyone failing to do it has less excuse now.   before I retired I always found it fun, provided it was about tax. ICAS has always been a teaching institute though. Mr N either wilfully refused, or had extra-office problems which are not divulged.

 

 

Tis funny

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Tis Funny that you have to alter your behaviour for risk of not upsetting someone with extreme religious beliefs, but you mustn't mention you did it!

For example you daren't eat a bacon sandwich even though they come in Bagels, or have drink? or chat up someones wife.All perfectly legal but guaranteed to upset a religious freak.

"don't mention the war"

Some of the most racist people I have met equally complain about racism.

Me I'm a Mongrel, And don't really approve of stonings, wife beating, child abuse, and burnings.

George...    1 thanks

secondhand_22 | | Permalink

Do you do parties, weddings and after dinner speeches, or just this forum?

 

Thanks

Er- wasn't this about CPd

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

Er- wasn't this about CPd somehow?

Caledonian

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

Caledonian means Scottish. It was in a paragraph in a reply to Andy Maclellan's post, and was slightly facetious. Sorry! 

 

Enjoy your gardening!

Tom7000

Donald6000 | | Permalink

With the greatest of respect Tom7000, you may have gained 94% in your PE1 but that means you are good at passing examinations.

It does not mean that you are seriously going to know every single aspect of Accounting for ever amen because you did that. It's an examination.

In contrast to yourself, I have a BA(Hons) Accounting Degree and am going to claim a BA(Open) degree later in the year. I know next to nothing; my last Open University Course was AA306, Shakespeare, Text and Performance. I know next to nothing about Shakespeare yet I passed the course at a 2.2 Honours level.

Examinations are a test of what you cram; they are not a test of real and substantial knowledge. You can take that from me, as I have taught Accounting and Business Studies.

So on that basis, someone who has practised accountancy for years in an unqualified capacity might well know more than yourself if your only criteria is that you passed the examinations.

Examinations do not make you better at anything; they just prove you can pass examinations. There are some brilliant people out there who have passed no examinations. You need to rethink your comments.

 

 

Tom 7000's picture

@Donald 6000    2 thanks

Tom 7000 | | Permalink

The reason you mistakenly think passing exams doesn't make you a good accountant is probably because you have never passed the entrance exams of the ICAEW.

To pass the exams I did 3500 hours of reading study texts on accounting auditing law financial management etc. On top of which I had a training contract ( apprenticeship) for 5 years and various other in house courses.

The day I passed my final exams, I could have wiped the floor with any unqualified accountant in the land and probably a great deal of the others who havent done sufficient cpd...and still can now

Since then I have done more than the required amount of cpd still hold enough knowledge to do my job professionally and competently and well

That is what this discussion is about doing enough cpd to be competent at your job If you don't you are a fool.

II am sorry to all the unqualifieds reading this but you'll never know as much as an ACA does the day he passes his final exams, because if you do, then why didn't you pass them?

Most qualified students start as Graduates, as I recall only 12.5% of those who start eventually pass. So you have to be the best of the best of the best to be qualified. I know my iq increased from 112 to 136 over the 5 year period. I think 130 is genius level.

I will accept that some qualifieds are bad and some unqualifieds may be reasonable, ( theres always an exception). But at the end of the day a car with a Bentley badge is pretty much always better than a home made go cart.

EXAMS    1 thanks

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

An ACA. 

 

Or a CA?

 

I passed mine in 1967, there were 5 papers. I passed the final first go, and some earlier parts there were re-sits. I never failed a tax paper, and the reason I passed the final (Part 5) first go was because the big essay question was about tax, not economics.

But when I passed the exams  in 1967 I didn't know anything except how to pass exams.. The next 43 years of my life were CPD, both on job and on courses.

But-IQ136, genius level, 3000 hours study. There wasn't a paper on modesty then?

If any professional body were serious about CPD...    1 thanks

Trevor Scott | | Permalink

....they'd re-test members a maximum of every three years. A single 3 hour exam should be enough; 75% for a pass. I'd bet a lot of people would fail, but then I think they know that.

CPD and all that

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

 I think this is all getting silly. I'm retired, I am happy to say. 

 

I have enjoyed my profession, love tax, but i am withdrawing from this forum. I am cheesed off with it. it has become a contest of ego's. and interpersonal vendettas.

 

Tata!

 

Tom 7000's picture

Modesty    1 thanks

Tom 7000 | | Permalink

 

Hadaway man...

or translated from the Geordie

Faint heart never won fair lady

ahahahahaaaaa

tom

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

A'reet.

Despite the address I'm not a Geordie.

But I did larn meself a bit of accoonts in me CPD.

My IQ was 140 when it was measured in 1960. LAst time it was only 130.  CPD wears the brain oot.

Kenneth Nelson    2 thanks

Court hill loyal | | Permalink

What a complete joke. Nelson stands up and tells the truth, he can't possibly do his CPD, but the Scottish establishment take umbridge and drag him through a disciplinary then fine him. Work in industry, tell the truth and get thrown out. Work in banking, bankrupt your business and the country, lose your knighthood and potentially bankrupt the Institute - remain a member. These guys operate in a parallel universe - have any of the banks auditors been thrown out? , did they discipline the guys who signed off the various rights issues. No need to answer - they are a parochially joke.

Above    2 thanks

ROB BROWN 43 | | Permalink

What a diatribe of possibly toilet roll length if it were printed out. back to the point. Do your CPD to retain the value of our profession. People who don't demonstrate the continued technical acumen are called bookkeepers.

 

Rob

Court hill loyal | | Permalink

Rob the snob. Check your membership lists mate and see how many of your institute membersc were involved one way or another in bringing our country to its knees. Your high handed guff is exactly the attributes of your mate fared- Are you a KapMG partner? any tips then?

Rob has gone to bed    1 thanks

Court hill loyal | | Permalink

What is wrong Rob need your beauty sleep ? Check out the facts. The Scottish Institute based in Edinburgh, responsible for supervising Scottish Accountants everywhere. Where was the RBS head office, Dunfermline building Society, Bank of Sciotland.- to name three that needed the tax payers to help out. Who audited these firms---- mmmmm- Auditors! guess who signed off the HBOS rights issue document- accountants- and all the rest. Look at the audited accounts of these businesses for the last ten years-. Want to be a non-exec or chief Exec- be a member of ICAS. Perhaps rob you might check out and see just how many if these fine chaps have been disciplined for shafting billions from the tax payer- it won't take long to work out even for an average bookkeeper-

Toys out the pram?

The Black Knight | | Permalink

George Gretton wrote:

The sense of morality and ethos in the organisation that runs this website differs significantly, as it happens, and for better or worse, from those of mine. 

So I'm disconnecting from Accounting Web.

Yours, George, Monday 22nd April 2013, 17:42 BST

Here's a link to an interesting article that some of you may have seen in the "Seven" magazine that comes with The Sunday Telegraph

https://www.box.com/s/52ojh0coe5iln5fpd6ga

Don't go George...you just have to tone it down a bit and play a bit cuter.

Takes balls to tread where others fear.

:-)

Society always has a fear of the different that's why they all strive to be the same.

Tom7000 Your previous comments    1 thanks

Donald6000 | | Permalink

I don't want to be rude to you Tom7000 but I think you should stop there; you are making a real fool of yourself.

Your contention is that no-one can be as good as you, no-one can be as brilliant as you, no-one can have studied as much as you, or done as much CPD as you.

This is complete codology and I think you know it. As for passing the examinations of the ICAEW, why bother? Unlike you I am not going to state my qualifications as I believe the essential qualities of a human being are far more important - compassion, humility, caring and morality.

Some of the qualifieds I have met have been among the most nauseating people I have ever met and also some of the most immoral. Take a look at the track record of some of the big auditors - if they knew so much how come we had to bail out the banks to the tune of £875BN?

In short, if it sounds too good to be true - it usually is. 

 

 

.    1 thanks

ireallyshouldkn... | | Permalink

Wow!  

I think this thread demonstrates admirably why ICAS didn't want George in their club anymore despite what sounds like a large number of chances to play by the rules. 

 

OCKs    2 thanks

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Donald6000 wrote:

I don't want to be rude to you Tom7000 but I think you should stop there; you are making a real fool of yourself.

Your contention is that no-one can be as good as you, no-one can be as brilliant as you, no-one can have studied as much as you, or done as much CPD as you.

This is complete codology and I think you know it. As for passing the examinations of the ICAEW, why bother? Unlike you I am not going to state my qualifications as I believe the essential qualities of a human being are far more important - compassion, humility, caring and morality.

Some of the qualifieds I have met have been among the most nauseating people I have ever met and also some of the most immoral. Take a look at the track record of some of the big auditors - if they knew so much how come we had to bail out the banks to the tune of £875BN?

In short, if it sounds too good to be true - it usually is. 

Compassion, humility, caring and morality?

Which accounting standard is that?

Donald I assume your qualifications are a sunday school attendance certificate then?

Not sure what you think an accountant does?

 

The Black Knight

Donald6000 | | Permalink

Don't be a bore. If you have something of value to say to me, then say it. Don't be rude.

A lot of the comments on this thread are a complete blag from people who don't know a thing just showing off and saying how good they are. It's an utter and complete bore. If this is the best that accounting web can offer, then I feel that the best I can do is to desist from coming on here. I don't like pompous bores.

george    1 thanks

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

I think you'll find it was Mr Neilson who was retired from the club, not George.

Not sure what Institute George was in, but his comments do liven up this thread. 

CPD

Fiona Woodman | | Permalink

Does reading all this count as part of my CPD?

 

yES    1 thanks

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Fiona Woodman wrote:

Does reading all this count as part of my CPD?

Yes!

Fiona Woodman

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

Fiona, if you've tried to read all this yopu won't have time for CPD!

 

In fact the answer is probably "no", as there is no paper on invective.

@ court hill loyal

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

Want to be a non-exec or chief Exec- be a member of ICAS.

I do hope Fred the Shred has done his CPD!

Red Leader's picture

Wow!

Red Leader | | Permalink

Just stumbled on this thread.

AWeb entertainer of the year - it's either First Tab or Gorgeous George. Close call.

Red Leader's picture

@George

Red Leader | | Permalink

Re First Tab - see his AWeb blog.

Pages