ICAEW Appeal Committee increases penalties and reprimand

Reasons for severe reprimand

The Investigation Committee took disciplinary action based on Duncan’s lack of communication and compliance; the appellant took no steps to reply to letters and emails from the ICAEW concerning their investigation.

The ICAEW’s Appeal Committee was also unable to detect any mitigating circumstances or factors that had been omitted from the original disciplinary reasons.

At the time, the disciplinary committee was aware that Duncan had personal problems, but the report states that he took no steps to counter those issues. Furthermore, the appeal committee took the view that if Duncan was fit to carry on practice as a member of the Institute, he was equally fit to abide by its rules and comply with its lawful requests.

For these reasons, the ICAEW’s Appeal Committee felt that the disciplinary committee had been exceptionally lenient in their original sanction but Duncan had failed to accept this, thereby refusing to acknowledge the consequences of his actions.

The appeal committee had “no hesitation” concluding that this was a rare case in which an appellate tribunal should increase the previously imposed penalties.

Reasons for complaints

Duncan has been a member of the ICAEW since late 2008. He is a licenced insolvency practitioner and practises as a sole practitioner and director of the firm Savants Advisory Limited.

The ICAEW’s quality assurance department conducted a standard monitoring visit to Duncan’s firm during December 2017, after which they raised a number of concerns to the insolvency licensing committee, who then referred the matter to the professional conduct department.

This department sent Duncan a letter during August 2018, informing him that they were investigating the areas of concern raised:

• Whether sufficient controls were in place to ensure that all matters relating to his insolvency appointment were dealt with in line with the insolvency legislation required.
• Whether there had been failure to undertake a full reconciliation of all insolvency service accounts (ISAs) to ensure the correct amounts have been paid to the ISA.
• Whether excessive fees had been drawn on cases.
• Whether there had been a failure to pay the petitioning creditors in priority to Duncan’s own fees.

The letter also requested that Duncan respond with answers and information in relation to the concerns, with a deadline of around a month.

After receiving no response, chasing letters were sent during November 2018 and January 2019.

Duncan did reply in February 2019, explaining that he had personal problems with an assurance that the information requested would be ready within two weeks.

When this didn’t happen, ICAEW issued Duncan with a formal notification asking for a response by 29 March 2019. This, again, failed to occur.

After further lack of communication from Duncan, the situation was deemed appropriate for disciplinary action during May 2019, nine months after the original letter stating their concerns was sent out.