Several of our clients came to us just before or immediately after a regulatory monitoring visit. Although we are delighted to talk to new clients at any time, it is far easier for us to do what is best for the individual practice if we are given time to work with you, whilst spreading the financial burden of employing us. The following stories illustrate the point quite well. They are true, but heavily edited to protect the identity of the IPs concerned.
Case study 1 – The monitors are on the way!
We received a call approximately a month before an IP was due to be visited by the regulators. As we always do, we pointed out that there was little we could do at such a late stage and that the IP might be better to wait until after the regulators attended.
The IP insisted that he wanted a visit and we attended for two days, identified a large number of issues across core areas of his case administration and suggested some deficiencies that should be addressed immediately. The regulators subsequently attended and although they drew some comfort from the fact that the IP had received an external review and addressed the most urgent issues, the IP still had to give undertakings for some areas. He was also ordered to provide a copy of his next external visit report to his regulator to show that certain key areas had been addressed.
If that IP had called us in when he first heard of Compliance On Call in 2005, he would, by the time of the regulatory visit, have been informed of all deficiencies across all of his case and office administration systems (not just the small number we were able to cover in the short period available prior to his monitoring visit). He might still not have fixed them (!!) but we would have identified them and suggested ways of fixing them, providing help with checking any new documents brought in to address the issues and generally being on the end of the phone when the world appeared to be caving in. Because of the delay, the first visit was much less effective and at least some of the second visit will be wasted, merely checking that he has completed the key areas that the regulator told him about on the inspection.
Case study 2 – My regulator said I might be able to use some external assistance.
We received a call from a practice where a regulatory visit had not gone entirely smoothly and one of the recommendations made by the regulator after the visit was that the firm could benefit from some external assistance. We were initially called in to verify that specific action had been taken to address the regulator’s main concerns, with the IPs intending to send a copy of our report to the regulator.
By calling us in late, the IPs had to suffer a difficult regulatory monitoring visit, tying up them and their staff in answering queries and then pay us to check that they had put improvements in place for issues that they had already had identified by a regulator.
It would have been far more beneficial if the firm had worked with us over a number of visits. That way we could have identified the issues that caused problems with the regulators and avoided them. We could have highlighted the evidential issues that caused the extensive queries raised by the monitors during the regulatory visit.
Most important of all, however, is that most of the IPs were regulated by bodies that give credit for matters disclosed and resolved. Therefore, if they had identified the issues earlier, fixed them, put systems in place to avoid recurrence and told their regulators about them, they would not have been penalised for them on the visit.
Case study 3 – My lawyer told me to get in touch, my licence is at risk
You should have got the point by now, so I won’t labour it, but if you have had such a bad visit that your regulator is threatening to restrict or remove your licence and you already have lawyers involved, you have to know that this is not an efficient way to manage your compliance!
By calling us in earlier, the IP’s firm would have addressed key systemic deficiencies that led to the regulator’s concerns. In addition, the IP would have been more aware of the issues that the regulators were focussing on, especially after his last visit report, which was less than clear
As it was, the IP kept his licence, but only after some significant work by us to suggest solutions, an incredible amount of work by the IP to actually implement them, further work by us to check that they had been implemented correctly and were working, and a difficult committee hearing with full legal representation. Our fee was not low, but we suspect that the lawyer needed for the committee hearing would have charged even more and the time spent by the IP correcting the deficiencies outstripped all of that.
What frustrates us, however, is that if the IP had approached us earlier, he would have saved all of that and run his cases more efficiently and hence profitably as well.
Case study 4 – I think I may need some help
Similar to an addict at their first AA meeting, it takes a degree of confidence to stand up and say “I need help”. This firm of IPs did that late in 2005. After an initial 2 day visit, we attended for another 2 days every 6 months and occasionally did extra work on specific areas.
By the time the regulators attended, the IPs had improved their systems and were used to dealing with the sort of queries that an inspection causes. Just as significantly, they had disclosed the more prominent deficiencies found on each visit in their annual returns. As a result, the regulators could see a steady improvement in the practice’s work, check when problems had been identified and fixed and concentrate their review on newer cases being run on the revised compliant systems.
Even with that effort, the visit was not perfect…it never will be. Because of the planned scope of previous visits, the way we review cases, and because some issues only arise in a small proportion of cases, we had missed a few minor issues. In addition, the practice had taken a commercial decision not to implement some recommendations. Even those are now fixed, but the IPs continue to use us because they recognise that a regular external view from someone who specialises in regulatory compliance will not only keep the regulators happy, but also produce system improvements that benefit the practice as a whole.
In all these case studies our involvement did not end with our report to the IPs. We provided continued support, undertaking the review of standard documents that the IPs had revised as a result of our recommendations. This is all part of the service we offer as part of our compliance reviews.
