CRR Case Summaries and Entity-specific Press Notices
The FRC publishes, on a quarterly basis, summaries of its findings from recently closed reviews that resulted in a substantive question to a company (‘Case Summaries’). In addition, it publishes the names of companies whose reviews were closed in the previous quarter without the need for a substantive question. No Case Summary is prepared for such reviews.
Case Summaries, which are available for cases closed in the quarter ending March 2021 onwards, are included in the table below. As, currently, the FRC is subject to existing legal restrictions on disclosing confidential information received from a company, the Case Summaries can only be disclosed with the company's consent. Where consent has been withheld by the company, that fact is disclosed in the table.
From March 2018 until March 2021, the FRC published the names of companies whose reviews were closed in the previous quarter but did not prepare Case Summaries. However, on an exceptional basis, specific cases may be publicised through entity-specific Press Notices, which can also be found in the table below.
The FRC’s reviews are based solely on the company’s annual report and accounts (or interim reports) and do not benefit from detailed knowledge of the company’s business or an understanding of the underlying transactions entered into. They are, however, conducted by staff of the FRC who have an understanding of the relevant legal and accounting framework. The FRC’s correspondence with the company provides no assurance that the annual report and accounts (or interim reports) are correct in all material respects; the FRC’s role is not to verify the information provided but to consider compliance with reporting requirements. The FRC’s correspondence is written on the basis that the FRC (which includes the FRC’s officers, employees and agents) accepts no liability for reliance on its letters or Case Summaries by the company or any third party, including but not limited to investors and shareholders.
Key
- Only a certain number of CRR’s reviews result in substantive questioning of the Board. Matters raised may cover questions of recognition, measurement and/or disclosure.
- CRR’s routine reviews of companies’ annual reports and accounts generally cover all parts over which the FRC has statutory powers (that is, strategic reports, directors’ reports and financial statements). Similarly, CRR’s routine reviews of companies’ interim reports will generally cover all information in that document. Limited scope reviews arise for a number of reasons, including those conducted when a company’s annual report and accounts or interim report are selected for thematic review or reviews that have been prompted by a complaint. In accordance with the FRC's Operating Procedures, for Corporate Reporting Review, CRR does not identify those companies whose reviews were prompted by a complaint.
- The FRC may ask a company to refer to its exchanges with CRR when the company makes a change to a significant aspect of its annual report and accounts or interim report in response to a review.
- Case closed after 1 January 2021 but performed under operating procedures that did not allow for the publication of Case Summaries.
- From the quarter ended June 2023, the FRC started identifying the auditor of the annual report and accounts, or the audit firm that issued a review report on the interim report, that was the subject of the CRR review. This information was also back-dated for closed cases publicised from the quarter ended September 2022. Cases marked N/A relate to those published prior to September 2022 or interim reviews that did not have a review opinion.’
Cases
CRR Case Summaries and Entity-specific Press Notices (Excel version)
| Entity | Cennox Group Limited (3) |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | RSM UK Audit LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
We asked the company to explain why it had not recognised a provision in relation to an employment tribunal claim. The company explained that it had no obligation in relation to the claim but that a provision should have been recognised in the accounts of its subsidiary, Cennox Limited. The company indicated that Cennox Limited will restate the comparative amounts in its 2025 accounts and disclose that the matter came to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Dechra Topco Limited (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Disposal of a product portfolio and the related cash flows We asked the company to explain the treatment in the statement of cash flows for the disposal of a product portfolio. The company explained that the cash flows had been included within operating activities as part of non-underlying items to reflect management’s presentation of performance. The company agreed to restate the comparative statement of cash flows in its next annual report to present the proceeds within investing activities. As this change affected a primary statement, the company also agreed to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Northumbrian Water Group Limited (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Cash and cash equivalents We requested clarification of various matters in the company’s presentation of cash and cash equivalents, the statement of cash flows and the reconciliation of changes in net debt. The company acknowledged that it had included non-cash transactions relating to lease liabilities in the statement of cash flows and the reconciliation of changes in net debt, and misclassified the receipt of a loan repayment under financing activities in the statement of cash flows. It agreed to correct these matters. The company also agreed to restate cash and cash equivalents, and overdrafts, to present the gross balances where there is a right of offset against an overdraft liability but no practice of net settlement, and to correct a misclassification of short-term deposits within the definition of cash equivalents. As the changes affected primary statements, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matters had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Presentation of an impairment loss on trade receivables We asked the company to explain its rationale for not presenting an apparently material impairment loss on trade receivables on the face of the consolidated income statement, as required by IAS 1, ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’. The company set out the quantitative and qualitative factors considered in determining that it was appropriate to present the loss in the notes, confirming that impairment losses will be separately presented on the face of the consolidated income statement where management concludes that such presentation would provide relevant and decision useful information to users. Defined contribution pension scheme We sought an explanation for an apparent inconsistency in disclosures relating to the charge for the defined contribution pension scheme. The company gave a satisfactory response and agreed to enhance its disclosure of the relevant facts. |
| Entity | Judges Scientific plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Offsetting of cash balances and bank overdraft in the consolidated accounts We asked whether the company had offset cash balances against a bank overdraft in its consolidated accounts and, if so, how it met the conditions for offsetting. The company confirmed the offsetting and accepted that, whilst it had the legal right of offset, the other condition for offsetting had not been met and therefore agreed to restate the comparative amounts in the 2025 report and accounts. As the restatement affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Impairment of investment in subsidiary We sought clarification on the company’s impairment analysis for its investment in a subsidiary. We closed our enquiries after the company provided the requested explanations. |
| Entity | OCS Group Topco Limited (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Factoring of trade receivables We asked the company to explain the accounting treatment applied to its debt factoring arrangement under IFRS 9, ‘Financial Instruments’, and for an explanation of certain related disclosures. The company provided satisfactory explanations and agreed to amend, in its next annual report and accounts, the accounting policy for trade receivables and the related note to clarify the accounting treatment applied. We also queried the treatment in the cash flow statement of non-cash interest and fees associated with the factoring arrangement. The company acknowledged that related cash flows had incorrectly included the effect of these non-cash items and decided to restate the comparative amounts in its 2025 annual report and accounts. The company also confirmed its intent to disclose that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Optima Health PLC (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | RSM UK Audit LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Distributable profits and distributions We asked the company to explain the basis on which the directors satisfied themselves that the parent company had sufficient distributable reserves before paying an interim dividend in 2024. The company provided a satisfactory response and will rectify its disclosure on the capital contribution reserve, which had been incorrectly described as fully distributable, in its 2026 financial statements. The company also acknowledged that certain transfers of investments in subsidiaries made prior to March 2024 had been recorded incorrectly in the parent company financial statements. The company will restate the comparative figures in its 2026 annual report and accounts and disclose the fact that the matter came to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Quartix Technologies plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PKF Littlejohn LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Tracker unit hardware We asked the company to explain the basis for accounting for installed and uninstalled tracker units as costs to fulfil a contract under IFRS 15, ‘Revenue from Contracts with Customers’ and inventory, respectively, as these units appeared to have met the definition of property, plant and equipment (PP&E). The company reconsidered its treatment and concluded that these items meet the definition of PP&E, as they are dedicated to the supply of company’s telematics services, the company has the ability to disconnect and reconnect them, they are expected to be used for more than one period and may be redeployed between customers. The company agreed to restate the comparative amounts in the consolidated balance sheet in its 2025 annual report and accounts, and also to make consequential changes to the consolidated income statement and the consolidated statement of cashflows. Replacement provision We asked the company about the basis for recognising a provision for upgrading tracker units from 2G to 4G in France, as it appeared to represent costs that need to be incurred to operate in future, for which no provision should be recognised. The company agreed to reverse the provision. As both of the above matters resulted in changes to the primary statements, we asked the company to disclose that they had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Technology Minerals Plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PKF Littlejohn LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | Consent withheld |
| Entity | UK Oil & Gas Plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PKF Littlejohn LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Decommissioning provision In the annual report and accounts for the year ended 30 September 2024, the company used a rate of 16% to discount the decommissioning provision. We asked the company to explain why the rate had increased rather than decreased compared to a discount rate of 10% used in the previous year. The company confirmed that this was an error and a risk-free rate should have been used. The company agreed to restate the comparative figures in its 2025 annual report and accounts and to disclose the fact that this matter had come to its attention as result of the FRC’s enquiries. |
| Entity | UK Oil & Gas Plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PKF Littlejohn LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Decommissioning provision We noted an inconsistency between the disclosure in the notes to the accounts and the accounting policy regarding the rate used to discount the decommissioning provision at 30 September 2023. In addition, calculation of the provision was identified as a critical accounting judgement and source of estimation uncertainty yet information about the related key assumptions, sensitivities or a range of reasonably possible outcomes had not been provided. We asked the company to provide details of the calculation of the provision and to clarify the discount rate used. The company provided the information requested and agreed to enhance the disclosure in subsequent annual reports and accounts. We were not persuaded that the discount rate of 10% applied by the company was appropriate as it is generally difficult to justify discounting a provision at a rate that is higher than a risk-free rate. This is because, when discounting liabilities, adjusting for risks that have not been reflected in the cash flows should reduce the risk-free rate. However, the difference between using a discount rate of 10% compared to the corresponding risk-free rate was not considered to be material. We therefore concluded that it would not be proportionate for us to pursue this matter further in respect of the 2023 annual report and accounts but notified the company that we would review this matter in the 2024 annual report and accounts. The results of this review are presented separately in the case summary for the year ended 30 September 2024. Impairment review of oil and gas assets The company disclosed that a discount rate of 2.79% had been used in the impairment review of oil and gas assets for the year ended 30 September 2023. We asked the company to explain how this rate reflected current market assessments of the time value of money and asset specific risks. The company confirmed that no impairment would have been recognised using a higher discount rate but did agree to use a more representative rate in future impairment calculations. Recognition and measurement of convertible loan We asked the company to explain why a convertible loan was recognised in full as a liability rather than as a compound instrument. The company explained that the equity component of the loan was not considered to be material. In addition, the loan was fully repaid during the year ended 30 September 2024. As there were no implications for subsequent annual reports and accounts, we closed our enquiry. Deferred tax on property, plant and equipment We asked the company to explain why deferred tax had not been recognised in respect of property, plant and equipment. The company provided a satisfactory response and agreed to enhance the disclosure in the annual report and accounts for the year ended 30 September 2024. |
| Entity | Card Factory plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 January 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
We queried why a cash flow in respect of dividend payments was classified within investing activities in the parent company cash flow statement. The company acknowledged that the amount should have been included within financing activities and agreed to revise the presentation and restate comparative figures in its 2026 annual report and accounts. As the change affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Headlam Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Impairment testing of cash generating units (CGUs) and investments in subsidiaries We asked the company to explain its approach to testing CGUs and investments for impairment, including assumptions relating to growth rates. The company provided a satisfactory response and agreed to improve disclosures relating to growth rate assumptions in the estimation of the value in use of the Melrose CGU. Presentation of cash and cash equivalents net of overdrafts We sought clarification of the basis on which the consolidated accounts presented a cash and cash equivalents balance which appeared to result from offsetting cash and overdraft positions in a cash pooling arrangement. The company explained this represented the balance on a single bank account in which multiple group companies participate with joint and several liability, rather than a pooling arrangement, and agreed to correct its disclosures regarding this arrangement. In the light of this explanation, we questioned why the parent company accounts recognised a larger cash and cash equivalents balance than the group accounts. The company agreed to restate the parent company amount to reflect the balance on the single bank account, with a corresponding adjustment to intercompany receivables, and to update its accounting policy disclosures to explain how it accounts for a single bank account in which multiple group companies participate. As the restatement affected a primary financial statement of the parent company, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | STV Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Statement of cash flows We asked the company to explain the basis for classifying the purchase of additional shares in subsidiary undertakings as a cash flow from investing activities in the consolidated statement of cash flows as this classification appeared inconsistent with the requirements of IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’. The company agreed that this payment should have been classified as a financing activity in the cash flow statement and to restate the comparatives in its next report and accounts. There was no impact on net cash flows for the period. As this related to a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | The Law Debenture Corporation p.l.c. (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Dividend liability We asked the company to explain the basis for recognising a liability for an interim dividend which had not been paid until after the year end. The company acknowledged that recognising a liability was inconsistent with its accounting policy and agreed to restate the 31 December 2024 position in its next report and accounts. As the change affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Vanquis Banking Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Finance income presented in the statement of cash flows We asked the company for an explanation of the finance income received disclosed in the statement of cash flows. We closed our enquiry after the company agreed to present cash flows from interest received and interest paid separately in its cash flow statement in the 2025 annual report and accounts, including a restatement of the comparative figures. Internally generated intangible assets in the statement of cash flows We asked the company to explain the basis for presenting internally generated intangible assets as a non-cash adjustment in operating activities, rather than an outflow in investing activities, in the statement of cash flows. The company explained that the amount should have been reported within investing activities and agreed to restate the comparative cash flow statement in the 2025 annual report and accounts. Since these restatements affect a primary financial statement, the company agreed to disclose in its 2025 annual report and accounts the fact that the matters had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Accounting for Post‑charge‑off assets (PCOA) We asked the company for additional information on the initial and subsequent measurement of PCOA at amortised cost, given the expectation of sale. We closed our enquiry after the company provided satisfactory information. Release of expected credit loss (ECL) provisions to profit or loss We sought an explanation of the basis and approach for the release of ECL provisions to profit or loss when accounts are charged off. The company provided a satisfactory explanation and agreed to clarify its disclosure in the 2025 annual report and accounts. Definition of default We asked the company to clarify its revisions to the definition of default and the impact these had on ECL staging. The company provided a satisfactory explanation and agreed to enhance its disclosure in relation to any future changes to the definition of default. Impairment testing of investment in subsidiaries We asked the company for additional information on the impairment testing of investment in subsidiaries. We were satisfied with the company’s explanation. ECL allowance on amounts owed by group undertakings We asked the company to explain the key assumptions and estimates for its ECL measurement relating to amounts owed by group undertakings, including the assessment of significant increase in credit risk. We closed our enquiry after the company provided a satisfactory response and agreed to enhance its disclosures in this regard in the 2025 accounts. |