[Skip to content]

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

Determination Report for Disciplinary Tribunal Panel

The Respondent has decided not to appeal this determination. The Respondent was present at the hearing and represented by Philip Vaughan of Simmons and Simmons. The charge was that the Respondent had committed Misconduct as defined in rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme 2004 of the Institute of Actuaries.

Misconduct means any breach of the Bye-Laws of the Institute and/or any conduct by a Member, whether committed in the UK or elsewhere, in the course of carrying out professional duties or otherwise, constituting failure by that Member to comply with the standards of behaviour, integrity, competence, or professional judgement which other Members or the public might reasonably expect of a Member, having regard to any advice, guidance, memorandum or statement on professional conduct, practice or duties which may be given and published by the Institute and to all other relevant circumstances.

The particulars of the charge found proved
The particulars of the charge found proved against the Respondent were that:
a) For the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) year 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 the Respondent failed to declare the appropriate CPD category as required by the Institute of Actuaries and set out in the CPD Schemes contained within 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; and
b) For the CPD year 1 July 2007 to June 2008 the Respondent failed to maintain an online record of CPD undertaken as required by the Institute of Actuaries 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, 10, 13, 23; and the CPD Handbook 2007/08 (Version 14) at pages 9, 11, 11, and 24.

The Tribunal found the facts as outlined by the Investigating Actuary proved in respect of both allegations detailed above to the civil standard of proof. The Panel determined that the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules of the CPD Scheme as to declaration of the appropriate CPD category and the maintenance of an online record, as set out in the charge above, constitutes Misconduct under rule 1.6(b) of the Institute’s Disciplinary Scheme.

Determination as to Misconduct
The Panel’s reasons for finding Misconduct in relation to the above charges were as follows:
1 The Profession’s CPD Scheme requires, inter alia, both an annual declaration of category and the maintenance of an online record in accordance with published rules. The Panel considered that even ignoring the e-mail communications, which it was accepted might not have been seen by the Respondent, there was no excuse for a member of the Profession being unaware of the rules of the CPD Scheme.
2 The Panel considered that members of the Institute would expect a competent member to make themselves aware of, and comply with, the rules of the Scheme.
3 The Panel also considered the issue raised by the Respondent regarding the reasonable expectation of the public. The Panel concluded that the public would expect the Profession to have a CPD Scheme and to monitor and enforce compliance with such a scheme, including time scales for reporting.

Sanction
The Panel determined under rule 6.23 of the Disciplinary Scheme to impose the following sanctions:
>> A reprimand
>> A fine, payable to the Institute, of £1,000
>> That the Respondent be required to attend a Professionalism Course within 12 months.

Costs
An application for costs was made on behalf of the Investigating Actuary.
The Panel determined that a contribution towards costs of £1,000 should be paid by the Respondent.

(On behalf of the Panel: Martin Slack FIA, Gordon Morrison FIA, and Geoffrey Fitchew.) Martin Slack, chairman 27 November 2009