
4.
Going concern
The Directors have prepared the financial statements on
the going concern basis as they do not intend to liquidate
the Company or to cease its operations, and as they have
concluded that the Company’s financial position means that
this is realistic. They have also concluded that there are no
material uncertainties that could have cast significant doubt
over its ability to continue as a going concern for at least a
year from the date of approval of the financial statements
(“the going concern period”).
We used our knowledge of the Company, its industry, and
the general economic environment to identify the inherent
risk to its business model and analysed how that risk might
affect the Company’s financial resources or ability to
continue operations over the going concern period. The risk
that we considered most likely to adversely affect the
Company’s available financial resources over this period
was: a deterioration in the creditworthiness of British
Telecommunications Plc
(“BT”) which would impact the
ability of BT to meet its obligations to Telereal Securitised
Property Limited Partnerships (the “Borrower”) and
consequently put financial pressure on the ability of the
Company to meet its debts as and when they fall due.
We considered whether this risk could plausibly affect the
liquidity in the going concern period by assessing the
degree of downside assumption that, individually and
collectively, could result in a liquidity issue, taking into
account the Company’s current and projected cash (a
reverse stress test).
We considered whether the going concern disclosure in
note 2 to the financial statements gives a full and accurate
description of the directors’ assessment of going concern,
including the identified risk, dependencies, and related
sensitivities.
Our conclusions based on this work:
—
we consider that the directors’ use of the going concern
basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial
statements is appropriate;
—
we have not identified, and concur with the directors’
assessment that there is not, a material uncertainty
related to events or conditions that, individually or
collectively, may cast significant doubt on the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern for the
going concern period; and
—
we found the going concern disclosure in note 2.2 to be
acceptable.
However, as we cannot predict all future events or
conditions and as subsequent events may result in
outcomes that are inconsistent with judgements that were
reasonable at the time they were made, the above
conclusions are not a guarantee that the Company will
continue in operation
5.
Fraud and breaches of laws and regulations – ability to
detect
Identifying and responding to risks of material misstatement
due to fraud
To identify risks of material misstatement due to fraud
(“fraud risks”) we assessed events or conditions that could
indicate an incentive or pressure to commit fraud or
provide an opportunity to commit fraud. Our risk
assessment procedures included:
•
Enquiring of directors and key management personnel
and inspection of policy documentation as to the
Company’s high-level
policies and procedures to
prevent and detect fraud, and the Company’s channel
for “whistleblowing,” as well as whether they have
knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud.
•
Reading Board meeting minutes.
•
Using analytical procedures to identify any unusual or
unexpected relationships.
As required by auditing standards, we perform procedures to
address the risk of management override of controls, in
particular
the risk that management may be in a position to
make inappropriate accounting entries and the risk of bias in
accounting estimates.
On this audit we do not believe there is a fraud risk related to
revenue recognition because income is predominantly comprised
of intercompany interest and management fees which are all
contractual, periodic payments that are predictable in nature
with limited levels of complexity. Additionally, these are non-
judgemental, straight-forward income streams with limited
opportunity for manipulation.
We did not identify any additional fraud risks.
We performed procedures including identifying journal entries to
test based on risk criteria and comparing the identified entries to
supporting documentation. These included those posted by
senior finance management and journal entries made to
unrelated accounts.
Identifying and responding to risks of material misstatement due
to non-compliance with laws and regulations
We identified areas of laws and regulations that could reasonably
be expected to have a material effect on the financial statements
from our general commercial and sector experience and through
discussion with the directors and management (as required by
auditing standards) and discussed with the directors and
management the policies and procedures regarding compliance
with laws and regulations. As the Company is regulated, our
assessment of risks involved gaining an understanding of the
control environment including the entity’s procedures for
complying with regulatory requirements.
The potential effect of these laws and regulations on the financial
statements varies considerably.
The Company is subject to laws and regulations that directly
affect the financial statements including financial reporting
legislation (including related companies’ legislation),
distributable profits legislation and taxation legislation and we
assessed the extent of compliance with these laws and
regulations as part of our procedures on the related financial
statements items.
Whilst the Company is subject to many other laws and
regulations, we did not identify any others where the
consequences of non-compliance alone could have a material
effect on amounts or disclosures in the financial statements.
Context of the ability of the audit to detect fraud or breaches of
law or regulation
Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an
unavoidable risk that we may not have detected some material
misstatements in the financial statements, even though we have
properly planned and performed our audit in accordance with
auditing standards. For example, the further removed non-
compliance with laws and regulations is from the events and
transactions reflected in the financial statements, the less likely
the inherently limited procedures required by auditing standards
would identify it.
In addition, as with any audit, there remained a higher risk of
non-detection of fraud, as these may involve collusion, forgery,
intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of
internal controls. Our audit procedures are designed to detect
material misstatement. We are not responsible for preventing
non-compliance or fraud and cannot be expected to detect non-
compliance with all laws and regulations.