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

ICAEW cuts fine for auditor's 'trivial' offences

by
8th May 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

An accountant has succeeded in an appeal to get his ICAEW disciplinary sanctions for breaching audit regulations reduced.  

Timothy Ross Anderson from Knutsford, Cheshire had originally been severely reprimanded and fined £6,675 in 2013 for carrying out audits over the course of three years without arranging external hot file reviews.

He incorrectly stated on the firm’s practice assurance annual returns in January 2010 and 2011 that his firm kept a record of the audit compliance reviews, showing work done and results.

In reality, he hadn’t kept a record and only informal reviews had been carried out.

As reported in this month's disciplinary tribunal report, Anderson appealed the ICAEW sanctions on three grounds: 

  • The charges were so trivial that he can't be said to have brought discredit on himself, ICAEW, or the profession
  • The Disciplinary Committee Tribunal (DCT) wrongly regarded what they described as the ‘dubious’ coincidence that the appellant stopped conducting audits shortly before a Quality Assurance Department (QAD) visit as an aggravating feature, so casting an unwarranted slur on the appellant; and
  • The sanctions imposed by the DCT were too severe.

The appeal committee (AP) decided that there was no merit on his first ground for the appeal, and agreed with the original decision that he had brought discredit on himself, the ICAEW and the profession. 

Knocking back his arguments, the committee commented, "It is not for the appellant to impose his own test of triviality on ICAEW, it is for him to adhere to the test set for the profession."

But on the second point, it said that the DCT "never had advantage of hearing [the appellant's] explanation and deciding upon it and had jumped to a conclusion that it was a fault. 

"In our judgement the DCT was wholly unjustified in doing so. Had they not relied on that factor they would have imposed a sanction that was less severe," it said.

The AP also agreed that on the third ground of appeal, that the sanctions imposed were too severe. The committee found him guilty on the first charge of inadvertence and a failure to pay proper attention to the standards while carrying out work in the course of his audits that were otherwise competent.

"We consider that the DCT put it far too high when saying it was reckless or serious negligence."

Anderson's severe reprimand was therefore reduced by the AP to a reprimand. Because of this and of his poor financial position and his fine was reduced to £1,500. In addition, his costs were also reduced to £1,500.

Tags:

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Rubster
09th May 2014 11:53

Human rights for accountants

This is what the Skull Cracker needed - a reprimand and playstation privileges withdrawn, before being escorted back to his open prison for anger management therapy.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By sherodwilliams
09th May 2014 12:19

Does it surprise us?

Frankly No - Professional standards & self regulation at the forefront again.

Surely the single most important standard is the ability to tell the truth. The regulations in respect of the Annual Return required honesty & it was not there.

What seems laughable is that the outcome was based partly on his "poor financial position"

The next time we criticise someone we should check first just to make sure that they are simply  "not telling the truth" in which case everything will be just absolutely fine ! And if they plead poverty then so much the better.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By SJH-ADVDIPMA
09th May 2014 13:26

benefits
ICAEW do a better job than the UK justice system, benefits swindlers get to pay back their theft over periods exceeding their probable life times and no jail time. Nothing to do with this but just wanted to get if off my chest.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By swatt66
09th May 2014 15:58

Dying race of solo accountants

There must be quite a few of us provincial accountants with a string of professional qualifications that make a pittance. After 6 years my fee income is three times the sum of my membership fees, PII, licences etc. Yes I'm well into a four figure gross fee income.

I don't suppose there are any sole practitioners who are wholly compliant with all the rules

Thanks (1)
Chris M
By mr. mischief
10th May 2014 18:22

Laughing stock

ICAEW Disciplinaries are a joke.  There must be at least 50 of their members who signed off all manner of well dodgy audit reports in 2006-2008 period of banks and other financial service companies.

They are in my view wholly complicit together with dodgy bank directors in bringing the economies of the world's major countries to their knees.

And how many of those guys even get a reprimand?

NADA.

Until they go after the big fat cat auditors they are laughable, glad I am not a member.

 

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By AndrewV12
12th May 2014 09:17

Your right he is not alone

The case is a warning to us all, no matter how great we think we are.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By SJH-ADVDIPMA
12th May 2014 16:13

Ooh, some postings have disappeared! Libel!?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Myshkin
12th May 2014 16:26

Professional Standards

Until the professional bodies take action against the guys in the big firms that signed off accounts in 2007-9 that were entirely fictitious anything else is just going to cause justified contempt.

Thanks (1)
By Rachael White
13th May 2014 09:20

Banned member

Hello SJH, 

No I can confirm the removed comments are not libel - just a banned member who had made a duplicate account. 

Rachael

Thanks (0)