IfA - A Chartered Institute

[Sith]

The IfA says that it recommends the use of its quality assured (my emphasis) Registered Organisations. Quality assured surely means that there are both rigorous codes of professional conduct and practice in place and that the IfA ensures that these standards are continuously being met through effective assessment and inspection.

If the IfA are serious that the RO scheme provides a ‘kite mark’ of quality and good practice then the onus must surely fall to the IfA to ensure that ROs are meeting the requirements that they set. It should not be the responsibility of employees (who may not even be members of the IfA) to monitor standards of ROs or to tell the IfA that standards are not being met. If there are ROs out there who are, for example, not providing CPD as required by RO status then the IfA must surely have failed in its monitoring role.

If there is no effective assessment and inspection of standards (and Oxbeast's example suggests these aren't working on the ground) then what is the point of RO status?

Are you suggesting that IfA should monitor the behaviour of ROs round the clock? Because that would appear to be the only alternative to the current inspection system (or something similar but more frequent). Also, some infringements will always be impossible to spot unless someone puts their head above the parapet and makes a complaint.

PS, I'm not sure how effective or probing the inspections are but I'll have a better idea once we've had our latest one in a few weeks.