[Skip to content]

Sign up for our daily newsletter
The Actuary The magazine of the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries
.

Determination Report for Adjudication Panel

On 28 October 2009, the Adjudication Panel considered a complaint that the Respondent:
a) For the CPD year 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 failed to declare the appropriate CPD Category as required by the Actuarial Profession and set out in the CPD Schemes contained with the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 12) at page 7; the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 13) at pages 7 and 12; and the CPD Handbook 2007/08 (version 14) at pages 8, 9 and 13.
b) For the CPD year 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 failed to maintain an online record of CPD undertaken as required by the Actuarial Profession and set out in the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 12) at pages 10, 13 and 23; the CPD Handbook 2007 (version 13) at pages 8, 9, 10, 13, and 23; and the CPD Handbook 2007/2008 (version 14) at pages 9, 10, 11, 14, and 24.

In failing to do any or all of the above, failed to maintain and observe the highest standards of conduct expected of a member, contrary to paragraph 2.1 of version 2.3 of the Professional Conduct Standards and paragraphs 1.2 and 2.1 of version 3.0 of the Professional Conduct Standards, which is therefore Misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6(b) of the Disciplinary Scheme for the Institute of Actuaries as constituting conduct falling below the standards of behaviour, integrity, or competence which other members or the public might reasonably expect of a member.

The Panel determined that the case report disclosed a prima facie case of Misconduct in respect of the allegations made against the Respondent in accordance with rule 4.2(b)(i) of the Institute’s disciplinary scheme and that the Respondent should be invited to accept that there had been Misconduct and to accept the following sanctions, namely:
>> A reprimand
>> A fine of £200 per allegation, totalling £400.

The Panel’s reasons were as follows:
1 The Respondent had completed his CPD record for the previous year and therefore was aware of his obligations under the CPD scheme.
2 In the interests of upholding the Profession’s reputation and public confidence in the Profession it is important that CPD infringement is treated seriously.
3 The Respondent admitted his failure to declare a CPD category and maintain an online record.
4 After careful consideration of the circumstances of the case the Panel found that there were no reasons to deviate from the guidance issued by the Disciplinary Board with regard to the appropriate sanctions.