Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

ICAS bans member for CPD non-compliance

by
15th Apr 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

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 CPD and that he was in breach of CPD regulations.

According to ICAS, Neison persistently failed to adhere to his CPD obligations by not supplying self-certification of CPD compliance for year ended 31 December 2008 and failed to come up with his CPD plan for 31 December 2009.

He then appealed the tribunal’s decision to expel him from membership, but later retracted his appeal.

The tribunal chairman decided, following correspondence, that the decision to expel Neison would come into force from 31 December 2012.

Discipline tribunal chairman James Taylor said it is an “essential” part of a professional body’s membership that its members comply with rules and regulations.

“ICAS had made CPD Rules and the whole tenor of Neison’s correspondence with ICAS and the tribunal indicated that he did not see any need to comply,” he said.

“That being the case, the tribunal determined that the only course open to it was to expel Neison from membership of ICAS.” 

An ICAS spokesperson said they couldn't comment further on the case.

ICAS operates a mandatory CPD model for members. In January, it issued a revised sanctions policy under which failure to submit CPD records when requested will result in a referral to the institute's regulatory committee.

Possible sanctions include a penalty, publication of non-compliance in ICAS press and failure to pay penalties and/or two consecutive years of non-compliance will be referred to the investigation committee as unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Tags:

Replies (61)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Replying to lionofludesch:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
25th Apr 2013 14:42

@George

Re First Tab - see his AWeb blog.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
25th Apr 2013 17:00

Red Leader --> George

This is a rather self regarding post, so please do excuse it if it appears so.

Notwithstanding the foregoing -

Red Leader was of the Spitfire and Hurricane breed but, as is I hope evident from my icon, the "Red" now refers to political persuasion. Stalinist, Menshevik, Bolshevik, Prague spring, etc references are however acceptable.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Brend201
26th Apr 2013 18:02

Back to the original article....

It appears that Mr Neison may be a director of a publicly quoted company (if indeed it is the same person).  

http://www.candcgroupplc.com/about/board-and-management

Does that make a difference to how the "crime" should be viewed?  Annual package of over €600,000.  All of his biographical material online seems to include "he is a chartered accountant".  If he values the title, should he not comply with the rules of the relevant institute and do the CPD?

(As a side issue, does a PLC director benefit from CPD?  Presumably if he is not up to date, he will be found out very quickly and removed. )

Thanks (1)
Replying to chatman:
By Donald6000
28th Apr 2013 20:58

George - your last entry

George, if people can come on here telling me and everyone else that they got 94% on their PE1, when that is not of the slightest use or ornament to anyone, then they can go on trading when insolvent.

You would have thought that HMRC and the Insolvency Service and Barclays would have launched an instrument to get the company struck off by now; they obviously don't give a monkeys.A bit like the dross that get on here and arrogantly state their examination results and how they are the Bentley Rollers of the Accountancy profession. The truth of the matter being that one would cross the road to avoid them.

As a man once said "It's all done in the best possible taste". I raise my mug of tea to you in salute.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By The Black Knight
29th Apr 2013 11:02

LDC accounts?

Is that all that was filed George?

You are right! They are an abomination.

Will any action be taken under s.414 (4) ? NO

This is why we have a deficit! Completely useless civil servants.

This is just one example of of hundreds of thousands of incorrect accounts filed at companies house that show a complete lack of knowledge about accounts.

Is that important you ask? Well if you want to collect the right amount of tax then perhaps you need to start with the right figure in the computation?

If the basic accounts are wrong you can guarantee the tax is too.

If HMRC were serious about collecting tax they would have a look at the accounts? By my calculations (sample) about 40% filed are complete rubbish.

Most if which will have other basic tax errors, over claimed expenses, dividends, overdrawn loan accounts, fraudulent transactions, undeclared income. EASY money really......it does lead you to conclude that the deficit is really just political spin.....otherwise they would fix it?

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Ken of Chester le Street
30th Apr 2013 14:49

Companies House

I am not sure why they exist. But the penalty regime doesn't take prisoners,doubled on a repeat offence , no concept of "reasonable excuse",  or that if the mensiverary of  28th February in the real world is 28th March  then the mensiversary of 31st January is 3rd March and not 28th February.  

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
04th May 2013 08:44

@George , brevity

is not your strong point , good read tho!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By The Black Knight
14th May 2013 09:48

go get em George!

Go get em George!

Sounds like someone in law enforcement has put down their tea and is going through the motions?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Self Assessment_1
15th May 2013 10:11

CDP

I bet all the "Auditors" of the Banks and Building Societies fullfilled their CDP requirements.

Tell me what good did it do?  Nothing!! 

Why has the ICAEW taken no action?  We all know the answer!!!

Does the ICAEW act for its members?  I leave that to you!!!!!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By The Black Knight
15th May 2013 15:00

Superb!

no share capital! No share capital note!

no accounting policies,should be reproduced verbatim? or other notes

the balance sheet required includes the notes applicable!

why does it not state abbreviated. Are they supposed to be the full set?

Whats the P&L for? Still not in statutory format.

What has happened with PAYE (as you say could be cash accounting or thinks they paid a bonus)

how about UITF40 in that case.

If not IR35 then why on earth pay all that extra payroll tax, bit late now though.

Clearly whoever is advising does not have a clue? If that's what the professional fees are for?

Clearly insolvent. Not that that makes a great deal of difference.

I bet HMRC accepted the same rubbish?

The amended accounts regulations state that a reason why the accounts needed amendment should be stated, but companies house don't know this.

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
avatar
By The Black Knight
15th May 2013 15:42

I hope so

George Gretton wrote:

I would say that you, BK, also could do a better job with the accounts, but then I just don't have the information to form that opinion - no offense, just ignorance.

___

I should hope so, cause ur granny could have done a better job!

cheeky whotsit! LOL

Thanks (0)

Pages