Financial statements audit and regularity review plan
Year ended 31 July 2006
Presented to the Audit Committee
on 26 September 2006
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Index
Page
1.
Introduction and engagement objectives
1
2.
Audit approach, scope and timetable
3
3.
Key risks affecting our audit plan
9
4.
Governance and control
13
5.
Fees
15
6.
Financial reporting developments
17
7.
Corporate Governance
18
Appendix
A
-
Engagement team
B
-
Performance indicators
C
-
Proforma audit and regularity opinion
Audit plan
31 July 2006
1.
Introduction and engagement objectives
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to explain the scope of the audit, our proposed audit approach, and to highlight the key risks that we will be focusing our audit work
upon. This forms part of the ongoing communications we are required to make under International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 260.
Our audit strategy has been developed following discussions with management and a review of the key risks facing the college.
The key purposes of this document are to:
confirm our compliance with professional standards
set out the audit scope and approach in outline
identify the key issues which we expect to be the focus of our audit work
Our audit approach is consistent with that adopted in previous years. Our audit approach will identify the key risks and will provide us with sufficient assurance that
the college is effectively managing these risks and that related transactions are properly reflected in the financial statements. Further detail is provided on page 3.
We are aware that the key issues may change during the remainder of the year and new issues may emerge. Our strategy will therefore be continually updated to
reflect key changes in the risk profile. The current key issues affecting our audit plan are detailed on pages 9 - 12.
We have agreed with college management a timetable for the audit to ensure our reports are completed for presentation at the college’s corporation and committee
meetings and to ensure the LSC reporting deadlines are met. The timetable is detailed on page 8.
The Baker Tilly audit team is the same as last year with the addition of Mark Barnish as rotation partner as advised during the retender process and detailed in
Appendix A.
In 2005/06 there have been important developments in the financial reporting requirements. We have summarised these issues on page 17.
1
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Engagement objectives
Our primary responsibility as your auditor is to form an opinion as to whether the financial statements of Stoke on Trent College prepared under UK accounting
standards show a true and fair view and comply with the SORP Accounting for Further and Higher Education. We are also required to form an opinion on whether
in all material respects the expenditure disbursed and income received during the year ended 31 July 2006 have been applied to purposes intended by Parliament and
the financial transactions conform to the authorities which govern them.
In accordance with the International Standards of Auditing (UK and Ireland) and the Audit Code of Practice issued by the Learning and Skills Council, we will:
Issue a statutory true and fair audit opinion on the financial statements of Stoke on Trent College
Issue a final regularity opinion to the college and the LSC
Provide certificates in compliance with the requirements of the Teachers Pensions Agency
Other audit opinions as agreed with college
We will plan our work with a view to ensuring:
minimum disruption to your staff and operations
that reports submitted to you are constructive and clear, focusing on the issues that matter
that surprises are avoided and that good communications are maintained with you throughout the assignment
Our engagement letter covering the above responsibilities has been set out for approval under separate cover and signature on behalf of the College Corporation.
2
Audit plan
31 July 2006
2.
Audit approach, scope and timetable
Financial statements audit
Our audit approach will focus on those areas of the business that are considered significant to the results for the period and the position at the balance sheet date.
Audit scope
Scoping objective
The audit is scoped to ensure that we will obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence in respect of:
the significant operations of the college.
other operations which, irrespective of size, are perceived as carrying a significant level of audit risk, whether through susceptibility to fraud, or for other
reasons.
It is anticipated that the income and expenditure account and balance sheet will be tested through analytical procedures and audit assurance obtained that the results
of those procedures accords with our audit expectations and underlying audit evidence. We may carry out detailed testing of transactions and period end balances
where our risk analysis or the results of our analytical procedures indicate that additional audit assurance is required.
We will update our record of your accounting and controls systems, and assess whether those systems continue to be compliant with requirements and are capable of
generating accurate and reliable information for audit purposes. We do not expect to test the operational effectiveness of controls as we do not consider that such
work would enhance audit efficiency. However, if other audit procedures prove inappropriate or inadequate, we may then seek to place reliance on the controls
operating within the college.
During the course of our audit we will maintain sufficient awareness of the college’s activities to ensure that our audit risk assessments remain valid.
3
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Regularity audit
The LSC has relaxed the requirement for a mandatory interim regularity audit for the college and the college has made the statement required under Supplement F of
the Regularity Audit Framework that the governing body is able to identify any material irregular or improper use of funds by the college or material noncompliance with the LSC’s terms and conditions of funding under the college’s funding agreements with the LSC and that any such instances will be notified to the
LSC. Therefore, all regularity audit work will now be performed during the one visit at the substantive stage of the financial statements audit.
Our regularity audit strategy recognises the need to place reliance on the college’s self assessment. The college should review and update its self assessment and
supporting evidence file, using the LSC’s Regularity Audit Framework. The self assessment questionnaire needs to be signed by the Principal once completed and
should be considered by the audit committee.
The first stage of the regularity audit is to consider the results of the college’s self assessment which will feed into our planning. It is, therefore, important that the
college’s questionnaire is completed in accordance with our agreed timetable.
We will liaise with the college’s internal auditors and place reliance on their work on the college’s systems and controls as far as possible. Our audit strategy will
include testing compliance with authorising legislation, assessing compliance with other rules/regulations that define regularity and regard is also made to propriety
as colleges are regarded as public sector bodies for these purposes.
Liaison with internal audit
We plan to place reliance on the work of your internal auditors where it is appropriate to do so.. A review will be carried out of their files and we shall hold
discussions with the internal auditors.
Use of specialists
Our local team is supported by our national Charities and Education Group, which was established to focus on the sector’s specific requirements. Our national team
will ensure that we are kept up to date on emerging issues for the sector and any potential impact on the college’s financial statements.
As part of our audit we will involve sector specialists in the areas of taxation and VAT as appropriate to ensure that complex technical issues are fully addressed.
4
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Qualitative aspects of accounting practices and financial reporting
We will discuss with management and will report to Audit Committee any areas where our experience as auditors leads us to believe that accounting practices and
financial reporting could be improved.
Materiality
The governors have primary responsibility for ensuring that annual financial statements are free from material misstatement or error. In addition, the governors are
responsible for identifying any material irregular or improper use of funds by the college or material non-compliance with the LSC’s terms and conditions of funding
under the college’s funding agreements with the LSC.
In accounting terms, a material error is one that, if it were unadjusted, would cause a user of the financial statements to alter his view of those statements or the
results or the financial position of the entity being reported on. Materiality, therefore, is incapable of monetary definition, since it has both quantitative and
qualitative elements. It is necessary to consider not only the impact of an error on the financial statements as a whole, but also on the individual accounting items
affected. Additionally, the cumulative impact of all unadjusted errors must be considered.
Auditors examine accounts on a test basis. The level of testing we will carry out is based on our assessment of the risk that an item in the financial statements may
be materially misstated (see below). As such, as well as for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, it is neither practical nor appropriate to give an indication
of the value of an item we would consider to be material although, clearly, we do relatively more work in areas where the risk of misstatement is considered to be
high.
A key element of our annual audit planning is to make an assessment of the risk that the accounts might contain material errors. We base this assessment on our
knowledge of the college and understanding of its business and of the FE sector. We assess risk both at the overall financial statement and at the individual item
levels. Risk assessments may be amended as the audit progresses. The nature and volume of audit work we will conduct are directly related to the outcome of our
risk assessments.
Materiality for our audit work on regularity and propriety is influenced by legal and regulatory requirements and the fact that it is public funds under consideration.
In general, materiality for matters of propriety is regarded as nil.
5
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Dealing with errors
We will record and investigate all potential errors that we discover during our work and, except for matters which we judge to be clearly trivial, communicate our
findings to management directly responsible for the preparation of the college’s financial statements. Management must decide which errors are material and
therefore require adjustment if the financial statements are to show a true and fair view. We will ask college management to provide us with written explanations
supporting any decision not to make adjustments, which we will discuss with them. If we cannot agree with management’s decisions, we will consider the
implications for our audit opinion.
In accordance with the requirements of ISA (UK and Ireland) 260 ‘Communication of audit matters with those charged with governance’, we are required to report
to the Audit Committee all known factual errors, unless they are considered ‘clearly trivial’. We will request written representation that the Audit Committee are
comfortable with any such unadjusted errors and the reasons for adjustment not being made.
Fraud
In accordance with the requirements of ISA (UK and Ireland) 240, we will consider the susceptibility of the college to fraud, taking account of the business and
control environment established and maintained by management, as well as the nature of transactions, assets and liabilities recorded in the accounting records.
However, the principal responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud rests with management, who should not rely on the audit to discharge those functions.
We will report, as soon as practicable, any suspected or discovered fraud which comes to our attention, even if the potential effect on the financial statements is
immaterial, unless there is a legal or regulatory requirement to report direct to a third party.
Compliance with law and regulations
We will report, as soon as practicable, any suspected or actual non-compliance with law or regulations which comes to our attention, unless there is a legal or
regulatory requirement to report direct to a third party.
6
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Audit timetable and deliverables
Objective
The objective of all our communications is to provide management and the Audit Committee with regular, open and relevant feedback. All issues follow strict
protocols for clearance at the different management levels, ensuring that the issue resolution is consistent, timely and respects your lines of management reporting.
Communication with the audit committee
The objective of all our communications is to provide appropriate and relevant feedback. Our communication with the Audit Committee will primarily occur during
formal meetings as follows:
26 September 2006
- Pre audit meeting during which, inter alia, this report shall be discussed
28 November 2006
- Post audit meeting during which we shall provide details of our audit findings
At the latter meeting we shall provide the committee members with feedback on the conduct of the audit and matters arising from it. In addition, if there are matters
of significance that we consider ought to be drawn to the attention of the Audit Committee between these times, then we shall do so.
7
Audit plan
31 July 2006
We set out below the key actions to be taken by Baker Tilly and Stoke on Trent College each month to ensure the reporting timetable is met:
July 2006
August/September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
PLANNING
 Initial planning meeting
 Confirm timetable and agree deliverables
 Issue agreed engagement letter
PLANNING
 Prepare draft audit plan for submission to Stoke on Trent College
 Carry out initial detailed planning work including review of minutes
 Set expectations
 Review college’s self assessment form for regularity
 Confirm audit plan with audit committee
 Review work of the internal auditors
AUDIT FIELDWORK
 Receipt from college of draft year end accounts
 Completion of detailed planning
 Year end audit field work
 Resolution of audit queries
 Completion of regularity audit
REPORTING
 Audit clearance meeting with management
 Prepare draft financial statements and regularity management letters and submit to
college management for comment
 Issue final management letters including management responses
 Attend Audit Committee meeting and present findings
 Approval of financial statements by Stoke on Trent College
 Submission of signed financial statements to college
 Submission of final management letters to college (and LSC for regularity audit)
8
Audit plan
31 July 2006
3.
Key risks affecting our audit plan
Overview of key business and audit risks affecting our audit plan
Set out on the following pages is an overview of those matters that we consider to be the key business and audit risks arising from our preliminary risk assessment
for the 31 July 2006 audit, together with our proposed audit approach to these risks. The risk assessment process is designed to ensure that we focus our audit effort
on the areas of highest audit risk to Stoke on Trent College’s financial statements. This risk assessment and our responses will be updated throughout the
engagement to ensure that all areas of material risk to the financial statements are addressed by our audit.
Key area of audit focus/risk
Our approach
FUNDING
The college’s total LSC funding allocation for the year is fixed under plan-led funding.
However, if the college significantly underperforms there is a possibility that the LSC
may re-negotiate the allocation for the year and that future funding allocations could
also be revised.
The College’s LSC funding target for 2005/06 was £29,439K. At present the College
is not expected to achieve target with the June Management Information reports
showing funding of £.26.2m. However, taking into account manual adjustments the
college predicts that the final outturn will be between £27.5-£28m. The college has
kept the LSC informed that they will be below target.
There is a shortfall in student numbers which is attributed to changes in programmes
but no financial impact is anticipated.
Our audit risk is that the final funding received for the year is misstated in the financial
statements.
9
Review college minutes and management reports for information on the performance of
the college against target and any possible issues.
Review correspondence with the LSC since July 2005 for any revisions to or issues re
funding allocation.
Review funding statement from the LSC to confirm the sums paid in the year.
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Key area of audit focus/risk
Our approach
ACCOMMODATION STRATEGY
Phase 1 of the accommodation strategy was completed in 2005/06.
Establish the status of any demolition/building work by reviewing committee minutes and
correspondence/invoices from the contractors.
Phase 2 of the accommodation strategy is a £9.5m scheme for a Care and Services
Centre of Vocational Excellence. This project is not expected to commence until 2006/07.
The final bid for the scheme had not been submitted by the end of July 2006.
FINANCIAL HEALTH AND GOING CONCERN
Failure to achieve financial targets or maintain the college’s financial health status as
measured against LSC criteria may impact on the college’s funding application or any
bank covenants.
Discuss with management the financing of the project and review bank loan
applications/agreements and impact on cash flow and related going concern issues.
Review the college’s financial results against the LSC’s financial health criteria.
Review the college’s financial results against any bank covenants.
Detailed review of the financial forecasts and ensure going concern assumption is
appropriate.
10
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Key area of audit focus/risk
Our approach
REDUNDANCIES
In order to reduce costs the college has had to make a number of redundancies. A
package of voluntary redundancies have been offered. It is expected that the
redundancies will result in a saving of £2-3m each year in the future. However, it is
expected that the costs of the redundancies in this year will amount to £1.5m.
Review minutes to establish the number of redundancies that were planned and the
actual number incurred.
Review details of the voluntary redundancy packages and agree the financial costs.
The main risk is that all costs, including any future costs, associated with the
Ensure that redundancy costs are appropriately allocated to 2005/06 financial year and
redundancies are included in the financial statements at the year end and adequately
disclosed. In addition, we need to ensure that any associated adjustments to the pension adequately reported.
scheme are accounted for.
TEACHING COSTS
The major cost for the college is the direct teaching and associated costs, the key variable Agree staff costs by performing a proof in total.
within this being part time staff costs.
Review the actual costs for the year against expected and obtain explanations for the
The management accounts to June 2006, forecast that the final pay costs for the year will variances.
be under budget. This is a consequence of the actions taken to re-structure the college
staff.
11
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Key area of audit focus/risk
Our approach
FUNDING
Review any external and internal audit reports on discrete funds eg WBL,ESF
There is a risk that if the college does not comply with the specific requirements set out by
funding bodies or fails to maintain adequate evidence to support student number claims,
funding may be at risk.
Review the internal audit report on student records.
Review the work and results of the college’s internal mini audits.
FRS17
There is a risk that the college has not fully complied with the accounting treatment as
required by FRS17. The accounting balances and disclosures reported in the financial
statements may not be correct.
Review the college’s supporting calculations for the pension figures.
Obtain and review a copy of the actuarial report form the local government scheme to
support the figures in the accounts.
REGULARITY REVIEW
The risk of non compliance with LSC requirements or conditions attached to funding.
12
Review procedures and controls, college’s self assessment and test compliance with
funding conditions in accordance with LSC regularity framework.
Audit plan
31 July 2006
4.
Governance and control
Introduction
This section details matters relating to the processes adopted by us to ensure the quality of our services to our clients and the robustness of our audit procedures. It
also details our independence.
Quality reviews
Independent quality reviews are carried out by our Quality Assurance Department on a rotational basis agreed by our Risk Board. The reviews are undertaken by
experienced partners and managers not connected with the audit. The inspection includes testing of the effectiveness and quality of our audits and a continuous
improvement programme exists to ensure that standards are maintained and improved.
Independent partner
Each college audit has an assigned independent partner with the appropriate experience and expertise. The independent partner for Stoke on Trent College is Mark
Banish. He will assist Roger Davies in ensuring that all Ethical Standards are complied with and in particular conflicts, independence and objectivity issues. Mark
Barnish will be responsible for the conduct of the financial statements and regularity audit from 2007 in succession to Roger Davies and will attend the audit
committee meeting in November 2006.
Hot review
If contentious or high risk issues are identified during the audit then an independent ‘Hot Review’ will be conducted by an independent technical partner before the
accounts are signed. The purpose of this is to identify and rectify any areas of non-compliance with UK law, Accounting Standards and other regulatory
requirements that may be contained within the draft accounts. The hot review partner will also consider key areas of our audit working papers to confirm that
sufficient, appropriate, audit evidence has been obtained in respect of all significant items in the financial statements.
13
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Personal independence
Baker Tilly personnel must adhere to strict regulatory, professional and internal independence requirements related to investments or business relationships with
clients. All partners and staff must annually certify their compliance with these personal independence rules.
Baker Tilly is authorised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (“ICAS”) to carry out statutory audits. Members of this Institute and other
Accounting Bodies are bound by the Ethical Code, which covers, inter alia, objectivity, independence, confidentiality and integrity.
Roger Davies is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (“ICAEW”) and is required to maintain relevant Continuing Professional
Development via training courses and seminars and, as an audit partner, must be a Responsible Individuals as defined by Audit Regulations.
In addition, Baker Tilly has internal requirements that must be met by all partners undertaking audit work. These include internal authorisation to undertake college
audits and cold reviews of working files. These are in addition to external reviews carried out by the ICAS Quality Assurance Department.
Partner remuneration is based on the overall profits of the firm and profits are shared nationally. A partner’s remuneration is based on a fixed element, a "lock step"
element and a performance based element that encompasses a wide range of contributions made by that partner during the period. Our Partnership Council, a body
elected by the partners, reviews proposed remuneration levels independently of management.
14
Audit plan
31 July 2006
5.
Fees
Introduction
We aim to provide value for money for your audit fees, ensuring that we provide you with a high standard of service, coupled with appropriate advice and guidance.
For 2006, the following will impact on our work / costs:
We anticipate that the standard of record keeping will be good and that there will be no requirement for significant adjustments to the figures presented to
us for audit
The adoption of International Standards on Auditing will add to our work
The adjustments required as a result of FRS 17, including a prior year adjustment and release of SSAP 24 provision, will require auditing, and the impact
on the College’s financial position will need assessing. We have been advised by the College that no accountancy assistance will be required from us on
this issue.
The consideration of the treatment and disclosures of the capital projects.
The consideration of the correct treatment and disclosure of the redundancies
Enhanced Governance reporting
If it is necessary to conduct additional audit work in connection with any of the above issues or other issues during the course of the audit, then the Director of
Finance and Information Services will agree the scope and fee with us.
15
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Agreed fees
Our fees as agreed following the recent retender process are:-
2006
Audit
£000
Financial statements audit
Regularity audit
19,500
4,250
TPA
750
Total
24,500
Audit fees will be billed throughout the year as and when the work is carried out.
16
Audit plan
31 July 2006
6.
Financial reporting developments
FRS 17 Retirement Benefits
After several years of transitional arrangements whereby disclosure has been made in the notes to College Financial Statements of the college’s share of any pension
scheme deficit, the 2006 financial statements will require full recognition of this deficit in the college accounts.
The LSC has given detailed guidance on the accounting treatment by colleges of fully implementing FRS17 in the 2005/06 Accounts Direction (issued April 2006)
including proforma Financial Statements disclosure.
FRS 21, 'Events after the balance sheet date'
FRS 21 is based on the revised IAS 10, 'Events after the balance sheet date' (applicable for accounting periods starting on 1 January 2005). It sets out the
requirements for recognition and disclosure of adjusting and non-adjusting events after the balance sheet date. The definition of an adjusting event is stricter than in
SSAP 17 and is not extended to include statutory or conventional requirements that were previously reflected in financial statements.
17
Audit plan
31 July 2006
7.
Corporate Governance
Corporate Governance requirement
Audit approach
Compliance with Combined Code on Corporate Governance
Review the college’s risk management framework and comment on any areas of concern.
Assess the college’s procedures to manage the significant financial and non-financial
risks.
Ascertain the procedures used to provide management and the Board with assurance
regarding significant risks.
Review the college’s documentation to support the Board’s Statement in the college’s
accounts.
Review the Internal Auditor’s Annual Report. Discuss any areas where concerns have
been raised.
Review issues and recommendations previously raised by internal and external auditors.
Assess the college’s progress in implementing these recommendations.
We are required to consider the arrangements for preventing and detecting fraud and
error.
Board’s statement on internal control
Internal audit
Previously reported issues
Risk of fraud and error in the financial statements
18
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Appendix A - Engagement team
19
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Engagement team
Staff contact
Role
Telephone number
E-mail address
Roger Davies
Partner
01244 505100
Gaynor Rains
Manager
01244 505100
gaynor.rains@bakertilly.co.uk
Roslyn Toan
Senior
01244 505100
roslyn.toan@bakertilly.co.uk
Mark Barnish
Rotation Partner
01782 216000
20
roger.davies@bakertilly.co.uk
mark.barnish@bakertilly.co.uk
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Appendix B – Performance Indicators
21
Audit plan
31 July 2006
22
Audit plan
31 July 2006
23
Audit plan
31 July 2006
24
Audit plan
31 July 2006
financial statements, if the College has not kept proper accounting records, or if we
have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit.
Appendix C – Proforma Unqualified Audit
Opinions
We read the Members’ Report and consider the implications for our report if we
become aware of any apparent misstatement within it.
Basis of Audit Opinion
We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing
(UK and Ireland) issued by the Auditing Practices Board and the Audit Code of
Practice issued by the Learning and Skills Council. An audit includes examination,
on a test basis, of evidence relevant to amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. It also includes an assessment of the significant estimates and
judgements made by the College’s Corporation in the preparation of the financial
statements, and of whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the College’s
circumstances, consistently applied and adequately disclosed.
Independent Auditors’ Report to the Corporation of Casterbridge College
We have audited the financial statements on pages X to X.
This report is made solely to the Corporation, as a body, in accordance with
statutory requirements. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might
state to the Corporation, as a body, those matters we are required to state to them
in an auditors’ report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by
law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the
Corporation, as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we
have formed.
We planned and performed our audit so as to obtain all the information and
explanations which we considered necessary in order to provide us with sufficient
evidence to give us reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free
from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or other irregularity or error.
In forming our opinion we also evaluated the overall adequacy of the presentation
of information in the financial statements.
Respective Responsibilities of the Members of the Corporation of
Casterbridge College and Auditors
The College’s Corporation’s responsibilities for preparing the Members’ Report
and financial statements in accordance with the Statement of Recommended
Practice – Accounting for Further and Higher Education, applicable law, and
United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted
Accounting Practice) are set out in the Statement of Responsibilities
Opinion
In our opinion the financial statements give a true and fair view, in accordance with
United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice, of the state of affairs of
the College [and the group] as at 31 July 20XX and of the College’s/group’s
surplus of income over expenditure/deficit of expenditure over income for the year
then ended, and are properly prepared in accordance with the Statement of
Recommended Practice – Accounting for Further and Higher Education.
Our responsibility is to audit the financial statements in accordance with relevant
legal and regulatory requirements and International Standards on Auditing (UK and
Ireland).
We report to you our opinion as to whether the financial statements give a true and
fair view and are properly prepared in accordance with the Statement of
Recommended Practice – Accounting for Further and Higher Education. We also
report to you if, in our opinion, the Members’ Report is not consistent with the
25
Audit plan
31 July 2006
Independent report to the Corporation of Casterbridge College (‘the
Corporation’) and the Learning and Skills Council (‘the LSC’)
In accordance with the terms of our engagement letter dated [ ] and further to the
requirements of the LSC, we have carried out a review to obtain assurance about
whether, in all material respects, the expenditure (disbursed) and income
(received) of Casterbridge College (‘the College’) during the year ended 31 July
20XX have been applied to the purposes identified by Parliament and the financial
transactions conform to the authorities which govern them.
Basis of opinion
We conducted our review in accordance with the Audit Code of Practice and the
Regularity Audit Framework 20XX/XX issued by the LSC. Our review includes
examination, on a test basis, of evidence relevant to the regularity and propriety of
the College’s income and expenditure.
Opinion
In all material respects the expenditure disbursed and income received during the
year ended 31 July 20XX have been applied to purposes intended by Parliament
and the financial transactions conform to the authorities which govern them.
This report is made solely to the Corporation and the LSC. Our review work has
been undertaken so that we might state to the Corporation and the LSC those
matters we are required to state to them in a report and for no other purpose. To
the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to
anyone other than the Corporation and the LSC, for our review work, for this
report, or for the opinion we have formed.
Respective responsibilities of the Members of the Corporation of
Casterbridge College and Auditors
The College’s Corporation is responsible, under the requirements of the Further &
Higher Education Act 1992, subsequent legislation and related regulations, for
ensuring that expenditure disbursed and income received are applied for the
purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions conform to the
authorities which govern them.
Our responsibilities for this review are established in the United Kingdom by our
profession’s ethical guidance and the audit guidance set out in the Audit Code of
Practice and the Regularity Audit Framework 20XX/XX issued by the LSC. We
report to you whether, in our opinion, in all material respects, expenditure
disbursed and income received during the year ended 31 July 20XX have been
applied to purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions conform
to the authorities which govern them.
26