Latest News
A professional lifeline to accountants

 

 

As Richard found to his dismay, getting back into membership of a professional body can take time. In Richard’s case, it took over two and a half years! So why the delay?

 

It was largely because Richard’s situation was so unusual. In January 2004, Richard got into financial difficulty and as a result, was adjudicated bankrupt that month. Under the byelaws of the ICAEW, of which Richard was a member at the time, his membership automatically ceased from the moment that the bankruptcy order was made. Subsequently, Richard entered into an arrangement with his creditors and as a result, the bankruptcy order was annulled in August 2004. However, this did not mean that Richard was automatically readmitted as a member.

 

In November 2004, Richard appeared before the local Crown Court and was convicted on two counts of false accounting. The amounts concerned in the two charges were relatively insignificant and when combined, amounted to well under £1,000. He was sentenced to 80 hours’ community service, together with having to pay prosecution costs.

 

Although he had ceased to be a member of the Institute, Richard was required to provide his representations with regard to his conviction. Consequently, he appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and was represented by ourselves. Richard was given a severe reprimand, fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,600.

 

The fine and costs were subsequently paid.

 

Richard then sought to apply for readmission. Although the IVA had resulted in an unpublicised consent order imposed by the Investigation Committee (with costs), the Institute required a considerable amount of financial information with regard to Richard’s finances at the time of the voluntary arrangement and subsequently. The Institute also required a report from Richard’s supervisor in respect of the IVA.

 

Richard was also expected to have maintained CPD since the cessation of his membership in 2004. Information was sought with regard to his present employment, together with an up-to-date CV. Clarification was also sought with regard to his future business plans and in particular whether he intended to go into practice. Finally, he was required to produce two references, one of which had to be from a member of the ICAEW.

 

Once all this information had been provided, the matter was put to a sub-committee which had to decide whether Richard was fit and proper for readmission. He was at last successful.

 

 

Robert found himself in an unusual position, in that he had been in practice for the best part of a decade, but had never held a practising certificate during that time.

 

Robert had been in commerce for some years and had then obtained employment with a firm of chartered accountants. In early 2000, he was appointed as a partner in the firm, but was never asked to take out a practising certificate. Subsequently, the firm dissolved and Robert joined another practice. Again, he did not take out a practising certificate. In each of these years, he paid his membership fee and complied with the CPD requirements. In addition, both firms had maintained professional indemnity insurance. As a partner in both firms, Robert had provided the normal services of a practising chartered accountant.

 

In each of the nine years in question, the annual return filed with the Institute by both firms had stated that Robert was a principal, but did not hold a practising certificate. That had not been picked up by the Institute. Nor had Robert been aware that these returns referred to the fact that he did not have a practising certificate. He assumed that as a member, he automatically had one.

 

It was only upon a review by the Institute of its records that it was identified that Robert was a principal in a firm of practising chartered accountants and did not hold a practising certificate. This was brought to his attention and Robert immediately applied for and obtained a practising certificate.

 

The facts were referred to the Investigation Committee which decided that Robert be offered a consent order (a disciplinary order) that he be reprimanded, fined £500, pay costs of £755 and that his name be published in the professional press.