Beyond the fine: What EY and KPMG’s FRC probes tell us

When news broke that the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) launched an investigation into KPMG’s audits of oil and gas explorer EnQuest, closely following a £1.2m fine issued to EY over Made.com, it was easy to dismiss as routine headlines. Another pair of Big Four firms under fire, more warnings about professional skepticism and more multi-million-pound penalties.

Look past the individual names, and a clear pattern emerges.

Both cases hit right as the FRC’s overhauled Audit Enforcement Procedure (AEP) officially came into force on July 1, 2026. Together, KPMG’s ongoing probe and EY’s settled enforcement show where regulatory attention is focusing: forward-looking evaluations, valuation estimates, and going concern models in volatile markets.

Case 1: EY and Made.com

The retail furniture seller Made.com listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2021 with a £775m valuation before collapsing into administration just 16 months later.

Following its investigation, the FRC fined EY £1.2m (discounted from £1.8m for early settlement) and penalized audit partner Julie Carlyle £49,000. Crucially, the regulator didn’t claim the financial statements were factually wrong or that EY caused the company’s collapse.

Instead, the sanction centered on a failure to gather sufficient appropriate audit evidence in two areas:

  1. Going Concern Testing: Audit teams accepted management’s cash flow models without stress-testing downside scenarios or running simple checks on whether the underlying spreadsheet formulas worked.

  2. Deferred Tax Assets: The team failed to challenge whether future profits would realistically materialize to support the tax assets listed on the balance sheet.

Case 2: KPMG and EnQuest

If EY’s case shows the danger of passive going concern testing in retail, the FRC’s probe into KPMG’s 2020 through 2022 audits of oil producer EnQuest shows how high the bar is set for capital-intensive industries.

The watchdog launched a formal investigation into KPMG and two individual accountants over their work for the London-listed firm. While specific charges remain under review, oil and gas accounting inherently relies on heavy management judgments around:

  • Asset Impairment: Testing whether field values need writing down as oil price expectations shift.

  • Decommissioning Liabilities: Estimating future costs to cap wells and remove offshore platforms.

  • Going Concern and Liquidity: Balancing heavy debt structures against volatile energy revenues.

This isn’t KPMG’s first run-in with energy sector audits, coming after earlier sanctions regarding Carillion and equity valuations elsewhere. The EnQuest investigation proves the FRC is scrutinizing how auditors challenge management’s long-term commodity price forecasts and discount rates.

The FRC’s New Enforcement Framework

These probes land in a very different regulatory environment thanks to the FRC’s updated AEP rules that took effect on July 1, 2026.

Historically, regulators had two main choices: quietly handle smaller mistakes behind closed doors, or launch full public investigations that took years to resolve. The new AEP gives the FRC a more flexible approach:

  • Published Constructive Engagement (PCE): Firms fix audit deficiencies collaboratively while the FRC publishes a summary of the outcome. It carries no cash fine, offering a path to fix issues without catastrophic reputational damage.

  • Accelerated Procedure (AP): Streamlines the process when firms admit faults early. This formalizes settlement discounts, such as the 30% reduction EY received for early cooperation.

  • Early Admissions Process (EAP): Incentivizes firms to self-report internal inspection findings right away in exchange for reduced penalties.

The regulator also raised the starting threshold for launching formal probes to “reasonable grounds to suspect” a breach, aligning its powers with other major UK market watchdogs.

Practical Takeaways for UK Audit Practices

Whether you run audit engagements at a Big Four practice or manage a team at a mid-tier firm auditing Public Interest Entities (PIEs), these cases provide clear guidance on where to manage risk:

Audit Focus Area Common Pitfall What the FRC Expects
Going Concern Accepting management spreadsheets at face value. Independent stress-testing, downside scenario checks, and testing basic math logic.
Valuations & Impairments Relying solely on client commodity forecasts or discount rates. Independent market benchmark testing and detailed challenge of management assumptions.
Deferred Tax Assets Trusting profit recovery timelines without documentation. Verifiable evidence that future taxable profits are reasonably guaranteed.

1. Spreadsheet Logic Needs Verification

You cannot simply check the output numbers of a client’s model. If your file lacks evidence that your team audited the formulas and logic driving management’s cash flows, the FRC will treat it as an evidentiary failure.

2. Document Your Challenge

The FRC’s enforcement findings consistently focus on a lack of recorded skepticism. If your team had a debate with management about commodity forecasts or revenue growth but didn’t document why management’s position was accepted, regulators will assume no challenge took place.

3. Build a Strategy for Internal Findings

With the new AEP framework rewarding early cooperation through the Early Admissions Process, leadership teams must decide how to handle internal quality reviews. Catching an error early and engaging with regulators under the new rules can save millions in fines and protect your firm’s standing.

The Takeaway for UK Practitioners

With over £14.5m in total financial sanctions issued across the profession during the last financial year alone, the FRC isn’t scaling back its oversight. It is simply streamlining the process to address audit failures much faster. For engagement teams across the UK, the message running through both the Made.com penalty and the EnQuest probe is straightforward: when management hands you a forecast or a valuation model, your job isn’t to sign off on their optimism, it’s to prove you tried to stress-test it until it broke.

Share
Exit mobile version