[Skip to content]

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

Determination Report for Adjudication Panel 30 November 2010

On 30 November 2010 the Adjudication Panel considered a complaint that the Respondent:

1. For the CPD year 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 he failed to declare the appropriate CPD Category as required by the Actuarial Profession and set out in the CPD Scheme contained with the CPD Handbook 2008/2009 at pages 9 and 13; and

2. For the CPD year 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 he failed to maintain an on-line record of CPD undertaken as required by the Actuarial Profession and set out in the CPD Handbook 2008/2009 at pages 10, 11, 14, and 25;

and in failing to do any of the above he failed to maintain and observe the standards of conduct expected of a member, in breach of paragraphs 1.2 and 2.1 of version 3.0 of the Professional Conduct Standards and in any event constituting misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute of Actuaries, being conduct falling below the standards of behaviour, integrity, competence or professional judgement which other members or the public might reasonably expect of a member.

Determination
Having carefully considered the case report and the appendices submitted by the Investigating Actuary, the Panel determined that the case report discloses a prima facie case of misconduct and that the Respondent should be invited to accept the following sanction:

>> A reprimand

The Panel’s reasons were as follows:

1. The Profession is committed to CPD enforcement. Compliance with the CPD reporting requirements is mandatory to enable the Profession to ensure its members are sufficiently competent to carry out their roles and failure to record CPD frustrates the Profession’s ability to regulate its members.

2. Nevertheless, the Respondent had completed sufficient CPD to satisfy the requirements during the CPD year 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 but had failed to record this.

3. The Respondent had complied with the requirements during the 2006/07 and 2007/08 CPD years and has also complied for the 2009/10 CPD year. The Panel recognised that this was an oversight by the Respondent but nevertheless concluded that he was culpable for this failing.

4. The Respondent was aware, by his own admission and by his previous compliance, of his obligations under the CPD scheme.

5. The Panel determined that due to his previous unblemished CPD record it was not necessary to impose a fine.