Auditors have to file such a statement in such circumstances. This was expected after the release of 2017 accounts so nothing new at all, its just the statutory requirement
advice from Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales
521 Copy of statement to be sent to registrar
[This section sets out what the auditor then has to do with his statement made under section 519.]
(1) Unless within 21 days beginning with the day on which he deposited the statement under section 519 the auditor receives notice of an application to the court under section 520, he must within a further seven days send a copy of the statement to the registrar.
(2) If an application to the court is made under section 520 and the auditor subsequently receives notice under subsection (5) of that section, he must within seven days of receiving the notice send a copy of the statement to the registrar.
(3) An auditor who fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence.
(4) In proceedings for such an offence it is a defence for the person charged to show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
We will never know what went on exactly but there was clearly no working relationship remaining between PWC and Wasps. Not sure you see such audit reports and filings that often, and that seriously taints Wasps holdings. That in itself makes me wonder what really went on between the two sides Wasps and PWC
I know I work with smaller audit clients but quite how audit fees charged by PWC increased by a factor of nearly 7 to over £200k surprises me even with the extra work they had to do. Wasps might have large numbers but are there that many transactions, and isn't a lot (even all) held electronically so the actual man power to the audit is it that high? The transaction they found must have been material to the audit it was £1.1m, it is not as if they stumbled across it to check by luck I would think they had to check it
I get the feeling there is more to this but I have nothing to add to that, its just a gut feeling. Seems PWC are covering their position any way they can however they have acted quite properly in terms of resignation . I think both sides will feel well rid of each other. But not my problem anyway