Things which hack me off #3
Now I know we all make typos, but I’ve been in a situation today which has really hacked me off. My job has been made unnecessarily difficult because two employees of an international bank couldn’t be bothered to spell check their correspondence before they sent it off.
As part of the audit of a pension scheme, we have to comment on the internal governance and control of the investment managers who hold the scheme’s assets. Normally this is just a formality. These banks and institutions have a report published every year in which a large firm of accountants will certify that everything is hunky-dory. We obtain a copy, review it, and put a note on the file to say it’s all cool.
The only complication is that these reports take a long time to produce. So, in this instance, an investment manager has sent me a report saying their controls were fine up to 31 December 2006. Because I’m auditing the period from 6 April 2007 to 5 April 2008 this isn’t good enough, but no matter – I simply emailed them to ask for confirmation that there had been no changes in control since the date on the report. This is normally a simple, five minute procedure. They are supposed to rely in writing that nothing has changed, I print the email and stick it on the file, we all forget about it.
See below the response I received:
I can confirm that there have been weakening of controls from the date of the internal controls report to 5 April 2008
That has to be a typo, right? We can’t sign off our audit report without confirming, so I emailed the woman back. See the response I just received.
The investments are free from charge or lien, and there have been now weakening of controls
The first message is blatently a typo, and the second message is blatently also a typo… but I just spoke to the manager about it and we both agreed that it won’t stand up in court and I need to email a third time to try and get a confirmation which is typo-free!
Tags: typos

August 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
What should it read as? I can’t imagine it’s a typo … more the wrong choice of word totally.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
It should hopefully read “no”. In the first email I think they forgot to type it entirely, and in the second email they mistyped it as now
August 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Got you. I thought the problem was the word “weakening” and that they should have used “strengthening” or something else.