As the government's independent investigation progresses, it is hoped that a clearer picture will emerge, leading to meaningful reforms within the auditing profession.
The Post Office scandal, which unfolded between 1999 and 2015, saw hundreds of sub-postmasters wrongly prosecuted and even imprisoned due to faulty accounting software known as Horizon.
As the fallout from the scandal continues, questions have arisen about the role of external auditors in this devastating series of events. Ernst & Young (EY), the auditors for the Post Office during the Horizon scandal, will now face scrutiny as part of an independent investigation ordered by the government.
The Post Office scandal centers around the Horizon accounting software, developed and implemented by Fujitsu, which was used by the Post Office for financial management. The faulty software led to numerous errors in accounting records, falsely suggesting that sub-postmasters had stolen money.
Over the course of 16 years, more than 700 innocent sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted, leading to financial ruin and, tragically, even suicides. It is now evident that there were significant failings in the Post Office’s management, governance, and oversight, but the role of auditors in detecting and addressing these issues has come under scrutiny.
In January 2024, the auditors of the Post Office were called into question over their failure to flag accounting failures in the Horizon IT system.
The auditors, including Big Four firm EY and PwC, were accused of not noticing a potential liability building up within the Post Office that was likely to give rise to costs of £1 billion. EY was the auditor for the Post Office during the period affected by the Horizon scandal. They were responsible for assessing the truth and fairness of the Post Office’s corporate accounts.
However, there are concerns that EY failed to uncover or adequately address the problems with the Horizon software and its impact on sub-postmasters. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the external audit process and the level of due diligence conducted by auditors.
Lord Arbuthnot, a long-time supporter of the sub-postmasters, questioned whether the auditors were looking at the right things or if they were merely ticking boxes.
The failure of auditors in the Post Office scandal can be attributed, in part, to the flawed business model of external audit, especially within large and complex organisations. The focus of external auditors is primarily on assessing the reliability of financial accounts for investors and the public.
While auditors may have suspected issues with the Horizon software’s reliability for day-to-day operations, such concerns may have been considered immaterial to the overall financial accounts.
This narrow focus on financial reporting may have prevented auditors from fully investigating the software’s impact on sub-postmasters and the potential risks it posed.
Another significant issue that has emerged from the scandal is the lack of accountability and oversight. Despite the mounting evidence of problems with the Horizon software, auditors and other relevant parties failed to raise sufficient concerns or take appropriate action.
This lack of scrutiny allowed the Post Office to continue pushing for legal action against sub-postmasters based on flawed data, leading to wrongful prosecutions and severe consequences for innocent individuals.
The failure to hold auditors accountable for their role in this process further highlights the need for greater oversight and regulation.
One of the key criticisms levelled against auditors in the Post Office scandal is their failure to ask the right questions and challenge the Post Office’s assertions regarding the reliability of the Horizon software.
Auditors have a responsibility to thoroughly investigate potential issues and raise concerns when necessary. In the case of the Post Office, auditors should have delved deeper into the system’s flaws and the impact on sub-postmasters. By not doing so, they may have unwittingly contributed to the miscarriage of justice that occurred.
The Post Office scandal serves as a stark reminder of the importance of effective and responsible auditing in ensuring the integrity of financial systems.
It highlights the need for auditors to go beyond a tick-box approach and actively probe for potential issues, particularly in complex systems such as Horizon. Auditors must be willing to challenge management assertions and demand further investigation when red flags are raised.
Additionally, there is a clear need for greater accountability and oversight to prevent similar scandals from occurring in the future.
In response to the Post Office scandal, the government has ordered an independent investigation led by retired judge Wyn Williams. This investigation aims to uncover the truth behind the scandal and hold those responsible to account.
As part of this process, auditors, including EY, are expected to face questioning during the sixth phase of the inquiry, which will focus on the role of external auditors. This inquiry presents an opportunity to shed light on the actions and decisions of auditors during the scandal and to determine whether there was negligence or a lack of due diligence.
The Post Office scandal has exposed significant flaws in the external audit process and highlighted the need for greater accountability. Auditors must recognise their role in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of financial systems, going beyond a narrow focus on financial reporting.
They must actively engage with complex systems and ask the right questions to uncover potential issues that may have far-reaching consequences. Furthermore, regulatory bodies and the legal and political establishment must strengthen their oversight and hold auditors accountable for their actions.
The Post Office scandal has brought to light the critical role of auditors in safeguarding the integrity of financial systems. The questionable actions and decisions of auditors, including EY, during the Horizon scandal have raised concerns about their effectiveness and accountability.
This case underscores the need for auditors to go beyond a superficial assessment of financial accounts and actively investigate potential issues. Greater accountability, oversight, and regulatory scrutiny are necessary to prevent similar scandals from occurring in the future.
As the government’s independent investigation progresses, it is hoped that a clearer picture will emerge, leading to meaningful reforms within the auditing profession.
