15 May 2015 Reports
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Audit Plan for Dartmoor National Park Authority Year ended 31 March 2015 7 April 2015 Geraldine Daly Associate Director T 0117 305 7741 E [email protected] Emma Dowler Executive T 0117 305 7619 E [email protected] © 2015 Grant Thornton UK LLP | Dartmoor National Park Audit Plan – 7th April 2015 The contents of this report relate only to the matters which have come to our attention, which we believe need to be reported to you as part of our audit process. It is not a comprehensive record of all the relevant matters, which may be subject to change, and in particular we cannot be held responsible to you for reporting all of the risks which may affect the Authority or any weaknesses in your internal controls. This report has been prepared solely for your benefit and should not be quoted in whole or in part without our prior written consent. We do not accept any responsibility for any loss occasioned to any third party acting, or refraining from acting on the basis of the content of this report, as this report was not prepared for, nor intended for, any other purpose. Contents Section 1. Developments relevant to your business and the audit 2. Our audit approach 3. An audit focused on risks 4. Significant risks identified 5. Other risks 6. Value for Money 7. Results of interim work 8. Key dates 9. Fees and independence 10. Communication of audit matters with those charged with governance Appendices A. Action plan © 2015 Grant Thornton UK LLP | Dartmoor National Park Audit Plan – 7th April 2015 Developments relevant to your business and the audit In planning our audit we also consider the impact of key developments in the sector and take account of national audit requirements as set out in the Code of Audit Practice ('the code') and associated guidance. Developments and other requirements 1.Financial reporting 2. Corporate governance 3. Financial Pressures 4. Other requirements Changes to the CIPFA Code of Annual Governance Statement Managing service provision with The Authority is required to Practice. (AGS). less resource with the cuts to submit a Whole of Government accounts pack on which we Assets Valuation and Fair Value Explanatory foreword. National Park Grant. provide an audit view. (IAS 16). Head of internal Audit Opinion. Real term reductions will have Going Concern . been 40% over the previous six years, reductions are forecast to continue. Our response We will review whether We will review the arrangements We will review the Authority's We will carry out work on the WGA pack in accordance with the Authority complies with the the Authority has in place for the performance against the 2014/15 requirements. requirements of the CIPFA Code production of the AGS. budget, including consideration of Practice through discussions We will review the AGS and the of performance and Medium with management and our explanatory foreword to consider Term Financial Planning. substantive testing. whether they are consistent with We will review the going concern our knowledge of the Park. of the Authority. the valuation of heritage assets is materially accurate and the valuation of assets is in accordance with IAS 16. © 2015 Grant Thornton UK LLP | Dartmoor National Park Audit Plan – 7th April 2015 Our audit approach Ensures compliance with International Global audit technology Standards on Auditing (ISAs) Understanding Inherent the environment Develop audit plan to Devise audit strategy risks and the entity obtain reasonable (planned control reliance?) assurance that the Financial Statements Extract as a whole are free Yes your data No Understanding Significant from material the business risks misstatement and prepared in all Test controls Test of detail material a respects Substantive IDEA Substantive Understanding with the CIPFA Code Analyse data Other analytical Report output analytical management’s of Practice using relevant risks review to teams review focus parameters framework using our Tests of detail global methodology and audit software Evaluating the Material General audit procedures year’s results balances Note: a. An item would be considered material to the financial statements Financial statements if, through its omission or non- disclosure, the financial statements would no longer show a true and fair view. Conclude and report Creates and tailors Stores audit Documents processes audit programs evidence and controls © 2015 Grant Thornton UK LLP | Dartmoor National Park Audit Plan – 7th April 2015 Significant risks identified 'Significant risks often relate to significant non-routine transactions and judgmental matters. Non-routine transactions are transactions that are unusual, either due to size or nature, and that therefore occur infrequently. Judgmental matters may include the development of accounting estimates for which there is significant measurement uncertainty' (ISA 315). In this section we outline the significant risks of material misstatement which we have identified. There are two presumed significant risks which are applicable to all audits under auditing standards (International Standards on Auditing – ISAs) which are listed below: Significant risk Description Substantive audit procedures The revenue cycle includes fraudulent Under ISA 240 there is a presumed risk that revenue may be Having considered the risk factors set out in ISA240 and the nature of the revenue streams at transactions misstated due to the improper recognition of revenue. Dartmoor National Park Authority , we have determined that the risk of fraud arising from revenue recognition can be rebutted, because: This presumption can be rebutted if the auditor concludes that there is no risk of material misstatement due to fraud relating • there is little incentive to manipulate revenue recognition. to revenue recognition. • opportunities to manipulate revenue recognition are limited. • the culture and ethical frameworks of National Parks, including Dartmoor National Park Authority, mean that all forms of fraud are seen as unacceptable; and • 70% of funding is received from a DEFRA grant. Management over-ride of controls Under ISA 240 the presumption that the risk of management Work completed to date: over-ride of controls is present in all entities. Review of accounting estimates, judgments and decisions made by management. Review of unusual significant transactions. Further work planned: Review of accounting estimates, judgments and decisions made by management. Testing of journal entries. Review of unusual significant transactions. © 2015 Grant Thornton UK LLP | Dartmoor National Park Audit Plan – 7th April 2015 Other risks identified The auditor should evaluate the design and determine the implementation of the entity's controls, including relevant control activities, over those risks for which, in the auditor's judgment, it is not possible or practicable to reduce the risks of material misstatement at the assertion level to an acceptably low level with audit evidence obtained only from substantive procedures (ISA 315). In this section we outline the other risks of material misstatement which we have identified as a result of our planning. Other risks Description Audit Approach Operating expenses Creditors understated or not recorded in the correct period Work completed to period 10 (January 2015): (Operating expenses understated) We have: Documented our understanding of processes and key controls. Undertaken walkthrough of key controls to assess the design effectiveness. Performed early substantive testing on operating expenses incurred. Further work planned: Substantive testing on operating expenses incurred for the remainder of the year. Search for unrecorded liabilities. Substantive testing on year-end creditors. Employee remuneration Employee remuneration accruals understated Work completed to period 10 (January 2015): (Remuneration expenses not correct) We have: Documented our understanding of processes and key controls. Undertaken walkthrough of key controls to assess the design effectiveness. Completed analytical procedures. Performed early substantive testing. Further work planned: Substantive testing for the remainder of the year. Complete analytical procedures. © 2015 Grant Thornton UK LLP | Dartmoor National Park Audit Plan – 7th April 2015 Value for money Value for money The Audit Commission has determined that a light-touch approach to Value for The Code requires us to issue a conclusion on whether the Authority has put in Money (VFM) work will continue in 2014/15 for larger relevant bodies, which place proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in includes national park authorities. its use of resources. This is known as the Value for Money (VfM) conclusion. This approach will be based primarily on a review of the annual governance Our VfM conclusion is based on the following criteria specified by the Audit statement. We will review the results of the work of the Commission and other Commission: relevant regulatory bodies or inspectorates to consider whether there is any impact on our responsibilities. VfM criteria Focus of the criteria We will also review the Authority's performance against the 2014/15 budget, and the longer term position in the Medium Term Financial Plan, to assess how the Authority is managing its service provision with less resources as a result of the The organisation has proper The organisation has robust systems and cuts to National Park Grant. arrangements in place for securing processes to manage financial risks and We are