Docstoc

Meeting with CIPRO – summary of matters discussed

Document Sample
Meeting with CIPRO – summary of matters discussed Powered By Docstoc
					Meeting with CIPRO – summary of matters discussed
The following is a summary of the main items discussed at a meeting between representatives from SAICA, CSIG, ICSA, LSSA and CFA and the Deputy Registrar of Companies and senior CIPRO staff on 27 May 2004. 1. New Building 1.1 Representatives from CIPRO stated that based on the planned date for the handover of the new building they would move at the end of July 2004. All the processing functions would move across to the new premises in Sunnyside but not the document storage.

2.

Annual Returns 2.1 CIPRO reported that the response by Public Companies had been very poor and that only about 13% of companies that should have submitted returns had done so. It was confirmed that CIPRO has started the process of de-registering Public Companies that had failed to submit annual returns. CIPRO confirmed that the processing of annual returns for Public Companies was going well and that payments were being tied up with the relevant company. There were however problems with the call centre where there were matters that had to be resolved. The head of Business Development Services stated that there were also some problems with regard to payments made via deposits at banks in the CIPRO account as banks sometimes inserted additional characters in the reference number on the deposit slips. This was being addressed with the banks. CIPRO stated that there was a timing problem with some annual returns where the information per the return did not agree to the CIPRO information because certain forms had not been processed. It was stated that debit cards would soon be introduced for payments as well as a payment facility and document lodgement system at post offices. Initially this would only be in the main centres. There was still no certainty about when annual returns would be introduced for private companies and close corporations but this would certainly only be after the move to the new CIPRO premises. A concern was raised regarding the fact that all Public Companies and external companies were being charged the same annual return fee of R4000, which did not recognise the fact that there are some small Public Companies to which R4000 was a relatively large percentage of their

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

turnover. CIPRO agreed to reconsider their models and assumptions and also stated that all fees would be reviewed once it was known what revenues would be generated. It should be borne in mind that CIPRO had to become self-sufficient and had to rely on annual return fees and other fees to achieve this. 2.7 The annual duty to be paid by dormant companies would also be reviewed.

3.

Billing 3.1 CIPRO stated that they were experiencing many problems as a result of practitioners not properly applying the procedures set out in the practice note available on the CIPRO website. For example about 20% of forms were being lodged without the necessary funds in the users’ account. Practitioners should allow about 3 days for payment to be reflected on accounts. This period was less if payment was made via CIPRO's ABSA account and was immediate if paid in cash at CIPRO's offices. Once the whole annual return process became more automated on the website controls could be introduced which would minimise incorrect processing. Practitioners stated that there were examples where CIPRO had incorrectly raised penalties by means of the reducing balance system and that these had had to be reversed. It was agreed that examples of these cases would be forwarded to CIPRO. CIPRO stated that practitioners were responsible for monitoring movements on their accounts and that invoices and statements were not issued. All transactions on accounts could be viewed on the CIPRO website.

3.2

3.3

3.4

4.

Call Centre 4.1 Serious concerns were raised by practitioners regarding the CIPRO call centre. It was difficult to get through and when one does the person answering the call is unable to help. Practitioners are told that the matter would be referred to a consultant who would call back but the call is not returned. CIPRO acknowledged that there were problems with the call centre. It was stated that although the service level agreement with the outsourced call centre stated that 80% of calls needed to be picked up only 16% was being achieved. Another problem was that the call centre was part of the DTI call centre and that the personnel on the call centre were not adequately

4.2

trained in the specialised area of company and close corporation secretarial work. 4.3 The Chairman acknowledged that the situation was not acceptable and stated that he would take this matter up with the Chief Executive Officer of CIPRO.

5.

Processing 5.1 CIPRO stated that the following processing times should currently be experienced: CK1 CK 2 Special Resolutions Liquidations New companies CM 29 CM 31 CM 22 5.2 5 – 7 working days 7 – 10 working days 1 working day 1 working day 5 working days 18 working days 7 working days 7 working days

The Chairman stated that processing delays had been experienced because of problems with CIPRO’s IT systems. The Chairman acknowledged that this was a serious concern and stated that he would take this issue up with the Chief Executive Officer of CIPRO. A practitioner raised a concern that the processing times given by CIPRO at meetings over the last two years often did not agree to the processing times being experienced by practitioners.

5.3

6.

New CIPRO website address 6.1 It was noted that CIPRO had changed their website address from www.cipro.gov.za to www.cipro.co.za

7.

Data Processing 7.1 Concerns were raised regarding incorrect capturing of various forms. It was stated that these processing errors were being picked up more quickly by practitioners now that a Certificate of Confirmation was being received with every change. It was stated by CIPRO that a data quality project was being implemented and that quality control procedures should highlight errors in capturing forms.

7.2

8.

Agents’ Accounts 8.1 A concern was raised regarding the security measures over agents’ transactions. It was currently possible to use another agent’s code for lodging a document resulting in the wrong agent being billed. CIPRO was aware of this problem and acknowledged that there had been a low incidence of this type of fraud. It was stated that in some cases transactions were being processed twice or even three times by CIPRO and that agents were being billed for these transactions. CIPRO stated that they were aware of such instances but that in most cases it had been caused by practitioners entering transactions more than once.

8.2

9.

Tracking 9.1 CIPRO stated that the tracking method used for documents submitted to CIPRO depended on the method by which the documents were lodged. In most cases documents were being tracked in some way.

10.

Urgent Processing 10.1 It was stated that if the approval of the Deputy Registrar of Companies or of Close Corporations was obtained, documents could be processed on an urgent basis. CIPRO confirmed that if it could be shown that a document had been incorrectly processed by them they would regard the correction of the processing as urgent.

11.

Changes of Address 11.1 A practitioner stated that he had obtained confirmation of an address change for a Close Corporation but that subsequent documents had still been sent to the old address. CIPRO acknowledged that this could happen as they were working with different systems which were not all linked. This issue was being addressed as part of the data-cleansing project. It was agreed that practitioners must alert senior staff at CIPRO if they became aware of examples of the above problem.

11.2

12.

Banks 12.1 There was a concern that all Banks do not seem to have been informed that the new CK 1 and CK 2 documents do not have the signatures of the members on the forms. CIPRO stated that there had been extensive communication to Banks at the highest level regarding the new processes. It was agreed that the

12.2

relevant Bank’s Head Office should be notified where branches did not know of the agreed procedures. 13. Revenue Stamps 13.1 It was confirmed by CIPRO that any documents lodged prior to 1 March 2004 with revenue stamps should have been accepted even if for some reason they had had to be re-submitted after 1 March 2004. Any examples where this was not the case should be e-mailed to peter@cipro.gov.za

14.

SIC Codes 14.1 It was stated by practitioners that Certificates of Incorporation for CCs reflected only the SIC code and not the principal business. Also in many cases the SIC code bore no resemblance to the principal business stated on the CK1 form. CIPRO acknowledged that this had been a problem and that in future the Certificate of Incorporation would reflect the principal business as submitted on the CK 1 form.

14.2

15.

Resignation of Accounting Officer 15.1 The liaison committee considered a suggestion that the CK 2A form should be amended to provide for the signature of the outgoing Accounting Officer. The Committee agreed however that this was not practicable and that this suggestion would not be taken further.

16.

De-registrations 16.1 A concern was raised that a company or Close Corporation could be deregistered without the consent of SARS. CIPRO confirmed that they could not de-register an entity without SARS’ approval.

17.

Membership Certificate 17.1 It was suggested that the Close Corporations Act should be amended to no longer require the issue of membership certificates, as this provision was of little relevance now that electronic certificates of incorporation could be obtained on-line.

18.

Companies Act 18.1 A query was raised regarding Section 51(c) (2) of the Companies Act. It was agreed that this issue should be taken up with the head of legal services at CIPRO.

19.

Copies of documents 19.1 It was questioned whether CIPRO would be putting a process in place to make it easier to obtain copies of documents that had been lodged. CIPRO stated that the filing of documents would be outsourced and that the service level agreement for the outsourced company would require a short turnaround time with regard to requests for copies of documents.

20.

Date of next meeting 20.1 The next Liaison Committee meeting would take place on 26 August 2004.

R B Ross SAICA 31 May 2004


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Stats:
views:278
posted:12/15/2009
language:English
pages:6
Description: Meeting with CIPRO – summary of matters discussed