Amongst the things that I did not predict would happen during the course of 2024 was that I would leave the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). However, I did on 28 March 2024, and they have now indicated that they have accepted that resignation. As a result, I think it is important that I explain my reasons for leaving. This is particularly important since I have been awarded first place in its social media rankings for the last five years in a row and was only noted in its own publications for this reason a week or so ago.
As many readers here will know, I have been deeply critical of the ICAEW over the last year because of what I see as its failures to account properly, or to exercise proper corporate governance with regard to, its receipt of £148 million of fines and other income arising from penalties imposed on its members and the firms that it regulates. Those fines were imposed as a consequence of the failure of those members and firms to undertake work to a sufficient professional standard.
The ICAEW has suggested that these funds represent a strategic reserve, but they have not been shown or ring-fenced as such in their accounts to date and there has been no clear statement given as to what this reserve is supposedly to be used for when it is apparent that the ICAEW already has more than adequate funding for all its day-to-day operations.
In themselves, the fines were an indictment of the ICAEW's long term failure to regulate accountants and to demand appropriate professional standards based on a proper professional education. Turning that failure into what has appeared to be a highly profitable business model as the ICAEW has done, in my opinion, compounds that failure.
I documented those failings in a report in May 2023, and expect to do so again sometime soon after the next set of its accounts are published, which is anticipated to happen later this month. That expectation arises because in January this year the ICAEW were unable to advise me that they had made any decisions on the use of these funds, which failure to act I think to be an act of negligence on their part, particularly given the obligation to act in the public interest imposed upon them by their Royal Charter.
I suspect those criticisms had something to do with correspondence I received recently from the ICAEW. I have good reason for my suspicion, but although they wrote to me, they never made it clear precisely what they were talking about.
I am also unable to provide too much detail of the correspondence that I have received because they threatened me with the risk of proceedings for professional misconduct if I were to do so, presuming I remained in membership.
When I suggested that I found the correspondence threatening and intimidatory they apologised, and then mentioned my risk of potential liability for legal costs.
I really doubt that I can say much more about what was written without risking legal action, and there are better fights to have than that. What I can, however, do is share the reactions of those I discussed this matter with, all of them long-experienced and high-achieving professionals, some of them in membership of the ICAEW.
Their reactions were reflected in the language they used. The term ‘Kafkaesque' was common. The suggestion that this was an attempt to intimidate me was universal. The belief on the part of those I spoke to that the ICAEW was seeking to silence me was, again, universal. Saying that, I should add that all those I spoke to were familiar with past harassment that I have suffered from senior staff working for the ICAEW, to which I have previously referred on this blog.
However looked at, I ended up in a situation a couple of weeks or so ago where it seemed quite clear to me and others that if I was to continue in membership of the ICAEW and criticise its failings with regard to the fines that it has collected, as I expect that I will do, then the risk that I might have professional misconduct action taken against me appeared to be significant. Since that action is only possible if I am in membership, presuming that I do not libel them, I decided that the only reasonable course of action to take was to resign.
That I have been permitted to do so makes clear that there are not, at present, any professional misconduct complaints outstanding against me since members are barred from resigning if that is the case.
I never expected that my membership of a body of which I have been an Associate or a Fellow since 1982 might end in this way. It has been both bizarre and confusing. However, when it became as clear as the correspondence permitted that I seemed to be being presented with the choice of making criticism or remaining in Fellowship, I realised that this could only lead to one outcome, and I have resigned.
My Twitter biography and my details on this blog have already been changed to record my resignation. My biography at Sheffield University will also be updated for the same reason, as will any other information over which I control, although as I have no idea how to edit Wikipedia and will have to rely on someone else to update my entry there.
What I can say is that my commitment to the need for an ethical, competent, well-regulated and properly accountable professional institute to regulate accounting that acts in the public interest and not only in the interests of its membership continues despite what has happened. In fact, I think that what has happened has occurred precisely because the ICAEW has convinced me that it is none of those things and that I do not, therefore, wish to remain in its membership.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Most (respectable) professional bodies have strict codes of conduct that members have to abide be.
The ICAEW’s principles compromise various items including:
– integrity
– objectivity
– competence and due care
– respect for others
Whether you admit it or not, it’s clear that your behaviour on here is at odds with many of the above.
What has actually happened as far as the ICAEW is concerned, is that you’ve jumped before you were pushed (or worse). I’m just surprised my profession has let you get away with so many things for so long.
Of course the profession is far from perfect, but publicly insulting the profession (and other members) is unacceptable.
Oddly, I can find no chartered accountant with your name.
So, frankly, I doubt you are using a real name and I doubt right now that you are a chartered accountant.
Where does that put you in the ranking of professional ethics?
As I noted, there are no professional complaints outstanding against me and I have never been sanctioned. Your opinion does not seem to stack and I am more than happy with the ethical nature of my conduct.
NB: No further comments of this sort will be posted here, so don’t waste your time writing them.
Will your resignation affect your work for Accounting Streams Limited I wonder, and will you have to drop the occupation description of “Chartered Accountant” from your multiple identities on Companies House?
Historically those submissions were accurate and do not need revision. The representation will not be made in the future. This makes no difference at all to my work with Accounting Streams, or anything or anyone else.
Sad.
Usually, I think staying “inside the tent” and lobbying for change is best… (I guess that is why I am still a Labour Party member) but there comes a point where this fails.
Sounds more like constructive expulsion.
Within the limits of what I can say, I think that the possibility of staying ceased to exist.
Richard
You have taken the honourable route. The ICAEW’s position is truly Kafkaesque, and I suspect they have a history of forcing members and fellows to toe the line.
I hope you will persevere with your campaign to require ICAEW to be transparent and accountable over the handling of these funds.
Best wishes
John
Thanks, John
Your supprt is appreciated.
Richard
Their loss Richard. If they can’t take informed criticism from within it doesn’t say much for them does it?
Well it is a disappointment to be hounded out after 40-plus years. You would expect a professional body to be able to deal with robust criticism without shooting the messenger. I suppose that is a risk of persistently asking awkward questions.
As GBS said, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
If I had to guess, and you may not be in a position to confirm or deny, I suspect you may have been threatened with investigation for breach of the ICAEW’s professional ethics code for “conduct that the accountant knows or should know might discredit the profession” or “that impairs or might impair the integrity, objectivity or good reputation of the profession”, which includes “conduct that a reasonable and informed third party would be likely to conclude adversely affects the good reputation of the profession”.
Because I suspect the leaders of a professional body (or its internal administration) will be inclined to see criticism of them or the body as likely to adversely affect the reputation of the profession as a whole.
The thin-skinned reaction suggests they recognise there is something that does not look right and they just want the whole thing to be ignored.
I cannot comment.
I can say, because it is a condition of resigning, that there are no complaints about me in progress.
It is quite normal for organisations, in “Late Soviet Britain” that feel threatened by criticism, to attempt to silence, by any means, individuals that do so.
This shows the weakness and intellectual corruption in such orgs that they need to resort to this.
The ICAEW is part of the UK’s “company control apparatus”, other parts of which (e.g. Companies House) this blog has shown to be failed.
Reading Abbey Innes book it stuck me how the SovU was very keen on suppressing “dissidents” as things got worse.
In Late Soviet Britain it would seem to be a combo of going after those that are “woke” and those that raise substantive points against well established quasi-gov orgs.
Things need to change – not a revolution – but a change of perspective.
I still shake my head at where we are, & how we got here.
FPTP Mike which together with a moronic right wing press, and a hopelessly tribal labour party enables the Tories to lie and manipulate their way to electoral victory time after time.
‘… where we are and how we got here…’ Death throes of a once ‘great’ empire?
Only one party to this dispute can hold their head high, and it isn’t the ICAEW.
‘If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why strike me?’
I cannot comment
I can but echo the ‘word’ that Timothy Bartel offers. As I have said before, Richard, yours truly is a prophetic gift and comes inevitably with the potential to be painful because the true prophet speaks from outside the ‘City Wall’. The duty of those hearing that ‘word’ is for them to judge ‘the thoughts and intentions of (their) heart’.
Thanks
Amen to that.
One of the main characteristics of what I hope is late period Neo-Liberalism is its dependence on avoiding any form of theoretical, personal or organisational integrity.
The constant right-wing parroting of their belief in the freedom of speech while doing everything in their power to deny it to others being a fine example.
So vigorously does the right pursue their vendettas against anybody that questions them that I would suggest to thrill seekers that instead of diving off tall buildings and other life-threatening activities, if they want to do something really dangerous they should try becoming a Whistle-blower.
Interesting.
I read a prediction elsewhere last year that because the ICAEW had introduced tougher requirements for it’s Continuing Professional Development programme (people would actually be required to go on courses and pass them rather than simply tick a box to say they had done some reading) that you wouldn’t put your rusting knowledge to the test and would resign your membership and come up with some ‘moral high ground’ excuse to cover yourself.
No doubt you can fool your readership but the wider professional circle will know why you’re leaving.
That’s quite amusing
I have a mmassive surplus of CPD each year – and writing two chapters of the Accounting Streams book would be enough to cover me for years to come…
You people really are very silly
I see a couple of people have attacked you personally, and questioned your professional ability, on this forum.
They clearly feel threatened. Excellent.
And I have been told I am incompetent by right-wing trolls for so long now I really do not care, because the evidence really does not support them.
Respect for you ethical stand.
My commiseration on being forced out.
Sadly other British Institutes, in other professions, are also of poor quality. I’m thinking of leaving mine, though that would also mean relinquishing chartered status.
I wonder why some British Institutes are so feeble. It didn’t used to be this way.
Look at medicine now and you will also see all the answers
I applaud your stance.
It does seem very serious – not necessarily for you but for us.
I have seen this several times before – whether in small local institutions like a chapel or national (trade union) or even quasi Royal ones. Someone inside, either as a member or or in an offical role – tries to enquire why things are done and whether things should be changed – and usually about money. Each time involved resignation rather than the institution agreeing to open up.
But as an outsider – given the apparent accounting disasters – big companies being given a clean bill of health the year before they collapsed, and the conflict of interest when accounting firms are employed as ‘consultants’ by the very companies they are auditing.
It is very worrying the national representative / regulating body of such a crucial profession would do this.
I gather that one of the characters in Ab Fab is based on a real person who is furious about her portrayal but were she to sue it would confirm that it is indeed her.
I imagine that in the same way if they have any sense the ICAEW might realise that they have had a lucky escape
Once you start forensically examining the real nature of Britain’s real (informal, but substantive), rather than ‘formal’, publicly declaimed but casually dispensable culture, and the reality of failure and latent toxicity begins eventually to assert its presence on public consciousness, even in Britain: the long established and vigorously promoted illusions about British standards and values fall away as easily as a veil. Dorian Grey then has to confront his portrait; it’s not a pretty sight, but the determination to keep it hidden remains intact to the bitter end.
The Post Office is the iconic symbol for the modern British State. Cane anyone; anyone, tell me why – even today – the Government is leaving the Post Office; The POST OFFICE!: in charge of controlling and dispensing financial REDRESS to the very people they have ruined? Who is responsible for that scandal, now? Government and Parliament, today.
Your anger is justified
Your blog is obviously seriously worrying some people, given that they have now set up to be the first to respond to any post of yours for which they can find a sneer and attempt to undermine you. I think that is one of very many things of which you should feel proud.
Guts, honour, conformity and the British state. Nothing new. Well done to make your stand.
Dear Sickoftaxdodgers,
Please could i have your permission to use your text
‘FPTP, together with a moronic right wing press, and a hopelessly tribal Labour Party enables the Tories to lie, and manipulate their way to electoral victory time after time’ and attribute it to you. SICKOFTAXDODGERS.
On a T-shirt to wear at election counts and other suitable occasions?
Bernard Little.