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

Former ICAEW practitioner hit for £10,000

by
10th Feb 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The ICAEW disciplinary system is quite assiduous about enforcing its rules on reporting and compliance - for example by fining accountants who fail to submit their CPD records.

But one accountant who tried to walk away from his professional obligations ended up with more than £10,000 in fines and costs after quitting practice, but failing to tell the institute or responding to its disciplinary enquiries.

The institute’s February disciplinary report contains details of two complaints against Leeds-based former sole practitioner Philip Oddy. The issues surrounding his practice go back to April 2007, when the institute’s Quality Assurance Department (QAD) sought undertakings from him to include an accounts disclosure checklist to improve the standard of the firm’s statutory accounts and that he would advise all clients of the basis of calculating fees.

Further exchanges - or lack of them - led to a formal disciplinary complaint when he failed to respond to the QAD’s closing record of findings between 12 September 2011 and 13 November 2012. The allegations against him included the following additional breaches:

  • Failing to document money-laundering risk assessments and due diligence, and not monitoring his firm’s compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations between December 2007 and June 2011
  • Engaging in public practice without professional indemnity insurance 10 January 2011 and 31 July 2011
  • Failing to register his firm, Philip Oddy with the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act between April 2007 and August 2011

On the same day that this complaint was heard against him last November, Oddy faced a second complaint that he had failed to submit an annual practice assurance return due for 31 January 2013 and had practiced without PII for the previous year.

In its report on this complaint, the tribunal noted that Oddy had sent an email to the institute in June 2013 saying “I retired and ceased trading as a chartered accountant at the end of November 2011 and no longer wish to be a member of the Institute. As a consequence, I have not paid membership fees for the year 2012.”

The tribunal accepted that since he had given up practice, Oddy did not require PII and found the second element of the claim against him unproven.

But the tribunal report noted, “It was incumbent upon him as a member of ICAEW to inform himself as to the regulatory requirements and to keep his regulatory body properly informed as to his professional activities.”

The tribunal ruled that the first part of the complaint concerning to submit the practice assurance return was proven, for which it reprimanded Oddy and issued a £500 fine.

Turning to all the other administrative transgressions, the tribunal detailed his exchanges with the institute’s practice assurance committee and QAD.

On the PI issue, the QAD had reported a gap in in the firm’s cover from 10 January 2011 to 31 July 2011. Oddy had explained that this was caused by a change of brokers, but when asked to provide a copy of the proposal form and evidence of PII cover, no further information or explanations were provided.

After a sequence of delays and cancelled follow-up QAD appointments following a visit in August 2011, the department sent around an inspector for a “door step” visit.

“There were cobwebs over the door and a lock so it appears Mr Oddy is not operational from this particular office,” the insititute representative reported. “There was a curtain shop in the same block of offices but they were unaware of what has happened to him or who he is.”

The tribunal found all the complaints listed against him in this case to be proven. Taking account of the other complaint against him, the tribunal issued a severe reprimand along with a fine of £5,750 and an assessment for £4,250 in costs.

Explaining the severity of the sentence, the tribunal commented: “The matters underlying the various breaches of bye-laws indicated a worryingly low standard of work and an almost complete lack of willingness to work with ICAEW to improve the situation. Albeit the fees earned by the defendant were low, nevertheless the public were entitled to expect a minimum level of standards amongst the profession and for members to work positively to improve where failings are detected. Mr Oddy’s conduct and failure to act would be likely to seriously undermine the view of the profession in the public’s eyes.

“His failure to update ICAEW as to his new details was an aggravating feature of the complaint. He has done nothing to cooperate with the IC’s investigation. This was also aggravated by reason of the length of time these matters had been going on, spanning a number of years. It appeared that Mr Oddy had essentially opted out of regulation by ICAEW.”

This is our final report on this case. For legal reasons, comments have been disabled.