Licence holders should establish and maintain quality control procedures, including as a minimum an annual compliance review which they consider appropriate to their circumstances, having regard to statutory requirements, technical standards and insolvency guidance notes. A thorough review of a licence holder's work can bring benefits and assurance far in excess of this requirement. If appropriately carried out, it could highlight practical ways for a licence holder to improve procedures and to deliver a better service. The review can identify situations where improvements in procedures can have benefits not only for the licence holder but can also ensure that the firm and the licence holder are not needlessly exposed to risk through poor work, whatever its cause. The annual review should cover the licence holder's obligations under these regulations and this should include the licence holder's continued eligibility for authorisation, the maintenance of appropriate standards of competence and the conduct of insolvency work. The latter should also consider the licence holder's compliance with his own or his firm's internal compliance procedures and should encompass a "cold" file review of insolvency work. This is a review after the particular work which is to be reviewed has been completed, to check that it was conducted in accordance with the licence holder's (or his firm's) procedures. How many and which files should be cold reviewed is a matter for the licence holder to consider, taking into account factors such as the employees or principals involved with the case, high-risk cases or high profile cases. Definitive guidance cannot be given on the number of cases to be reviewed. One approach to this question of frequency is simply to review the work of every licence holder each year. Completed files would be selected and reviewed to make sure that the statutory requirements, Statements of Insolvency Practice and the firm's procedures had been followed. For many licence holders, particularly in smaller practices, this may be the easiest procedure to adopt. In multi-office firms a different approach may be necessary and it may be appropriate for quality assurance/compliance review programmes to be adopted on a structured risk management approach. Some insolvency practitioners operate within larger general practices. It is likely that the general practice will already be undertaking regular quality assurance/compliance reviews. In many such firms, a rolling cycle of compliance reviews has been adopted and this can be carried over into the insolvency area. Insolvency practitioners are encouraged to co-ordinate their own reviews with that of the firm. Results of annual compliance reviews should be disseminated to all partners and staff involved in the specific discipline. It is consequently the responsibility of individual insolvency practitioners to consider the results and implement, if appropriate, the specific action points arising from such reviews. There is no need for the licence holder to conduct the review himself. Some licence holders may find it more practical and cost-effective to use a service provided by an external organisation or provided by another licence holder. However, using an external reviewer does not reduce the licence holder's own responsibility for the review or for ensuring that any necessary action is taken. Licence holders may also benefit from reviewing another licence holder. The compliance review, and cold file reviews carried out as part of that review, are likely to vary in formality according to the size of the firm. However, every licence holder should be able to provide evidence of the review and, where appropriate, any action taken. All relevant principals and employees should be informed of the results of the monitoring exercise at the earliest opportunity. If improvements are needed, any necessary changes should be made as soon as possible. The licence holder should be satisfied that where issues arise out of the review there is a system in place to ensure that appropriate action is taken. In order to place reliance on the practitioners own (or in larger firms the firm's own) compliance review, ICAEW or its agent would seek, during its monitoring visits, to re-perform part of the work undertaken. If reliance can be placed on the practitioner's own review, the benefit of this approach will be to enable ICAEW or its agent to focus on the action the practitioner has taken to address any matters arising. This approach would lead, over time, to a reduction in the duration of monitoring visits allowing ICAEW or its agent to undertake shorter, more focussed visits. |