This 20-mark question was based on a window cleaning company, Shiny Happy Windows Co, along with unrelated requirements on substantive procedures and tests of control as well as substantive procedures over a company’s bank balance.

Part (a) for 4 marks had two sub requirements which were not related to the scenario. Candidates were required to define a substantive procedure and a test of control and then provide an example of each procedure relevant to sales invoicing.

A large number of candidates could not provide valid definitions. Most were able to define test of control, but struggled with substantive procedure. The attempts by most candidates at providing examples of tests of control and substantive procedures were unsatisfactory.

Many provided controls rather than how to test the controls and the substantive procedures were weak in relation to the level of detail provided. As noted in previous Examiner’s reports a substantive procedure which starts with “check” is unlikely to score many marks.

In addition some candidates provided valid examples of tests of controls and substantive procedures, but these were not in relation to sales invoicing. It can only be assumed that this was due to a failure to read the question properly.

Obtaining evidence is a core part of the syllabus and for candidates to not be able to provide examples and definitions for substantive procedures and tests of control is unsatisfactory. Future candidates must ensure that they are mindful of the importance of this topic area.