[Skip to content]

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

Disciplinary proceedings

William Robert Frederick Bowman
The Disciplinary Tribunal of the Institute of Actuaries has fined one of its fellows, Mr William Robert Frederick Bowman, after he was found guilty of misconduct at a tribunal hearing on 2 November 2002.

The misconduct, as defined in Rule 3 of the Disciplinary Scheme under Bye-law 69 of the Bye-laws of the Institute of Actuaries, related to, when acting as a scheme actuary to a pension scheme (the Pension Scheme):

  1. failure to provide to the trustees of the Pension Scheme (the Trustees) a valuation by the date required by Regulations 10 and 30 of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Actuarial Valuations) Regulations 1996 (the 1996 Regulations);
  2. failure to maintain an office procedure that would have alerted him to the failure to have provided such a valuation by the due date;
  3. failure to report immediately to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) the non-compliance by the Trustees with their obligations to obtain a valuation under section 57(1) of the Pensions Act 1995 (the 1995 Act) and to adopt a certified schedule of contributions under section 58(1) of that Act, such failure being:
    • in breach of section 48(1) of the 1995 Act because he had reasonable cause to believe that the Trustees’ non-compliance was likely to be of material significance to Opra;
    • in breach of the obligation under paragraph 7.1 of Guidance Note 29 (version 3.1);
  4. misdirecting himself as to when the obligation, under section 48(1) of the 1995 Act, arose to report the failure of the Trustees to obtain a valuation; and
  5. failure to consider discussing the circumstances with Opra in breach of paragraph 7.7 of GN29;

– individually and together constituting conduct falling short of the standards which might reasonably be expected of a member.

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent stated that he accepted guilt on the particulars of the charge as set out above. In light of the respondent’s acceptance of guilt on the charge, the panel found that the particulars of the charge amounted to misconduct.

The panel then carefully considered the representations made by Mr Bowman in relation to mitigation. The chairman stated that the panel viewed this misconduct as a serious breach on the respondent’s part. However, they had noted the pleas of mitigation and the statement of the Investigating Committee that he had co-operated fully in their investigations. They were also mindful that the issue had been ongoing for some considerable period. With regard to the failures outlined in the particulars of the charge, while these failures remained the ultimate responsibility of the respondent, the panel recognised that, to some extent, they were attributable to weaknesses in his employer’s operational procedures at that time.

In all the circumstances, the panel determined that, under Rule 39, the penalty will be a fine of £2,000 payable to the Institute of Actuaries. The panel did not feel it appropriate to order any additional sanction.No costs recovery was requested by the Investigating Committee or awarded by the panel.

Further details of the charge and the determination can be found at www.actuaries.org.uk /professional_affairs/discipline/bowman.pdf.