The introduction of statutory backstop dates has fundamentally changed the audit landscape. Where auditors previously had scope to work through complex technical issues over extended periods, there is now a hard deadline. If matters remain unresolved, there is a risk of them resulting in modified opinions, disclaimers, or delays in sign-off.
Treasury management is emerging as a consistent source of these issues. What were once considered technical or peripheral areas are now proving material to financial statements and audit conclusions.
A pattern is becoming clear across local authority audits. The same technical weaknesses are repeatedly surfacing:
MRP misapplication - Authorities continue to apply approaches that are either non-compliant with statutory guidance or poorly evidenced. Common issues include inappropriate asset lives, inconsistent treatment of capital expenditure, and a lack of a clear link between the financing strategy and MRP policy.
Financial instruments misclassification and valuation - IFRS 9 remains a challenge. Errors typically arise in:
Investment valuations - There is increasing audit scrutiny of:
Capital financing disconnects - Auditors are identifying mismatches between:
This often points to a lack of integration between treasury, capital finance, and accounting functions.
The highest risk is not necessarily in complex structures, but in areas where practices have not evolved.
Authorities are particularly exposed where they:
There is also a growing risk in smaller or leaner teams, where capacity constraints mean technical areas are revisited infrequently.
One of the clearest lessons from recent audits is that treasury cannot be considered in isolation.
Decisions in one area flow directly into others:
Where these areas are not aligned, inconsistencies emerge quickly in the accounts. Auditors are increasingly testing these linkages rather than reviewing each component in isolation.
A fragmented approach is no longer sustainable under compressed audit timelines, therefore it is worth thinking about the following:
Undertake targeted technical reviews - Focus on high-risk areas such as MRP, financial instruments, and capital financing. Independent challenge is often the quickest way to identify weaknesses before audit.
Strengthen documentation and audit trails - Auditors are placing significant weight on evidence. Clear rationale, assumptions, and methodologies must be documented and reproducible.
Align treasury and accounting processes - Regular reconciliation between treasury records and the general ledger is essential. Key assumptions should be shared and consistently applied.
Refresh models and assumptions - Legacy spreadsheets and models should be reviewed and, where necessary, rebuilt. This includes revisiting discount rates, asset lives, and credit risk assumptions.
Engage early with auditors - Pre-audit discussions on technical areas can prevent late-stage disagreements. Under backstop constraints, early alignment is increasingly valuable.
Perhaps the most significant shift is that “it has always been done this way” is no longer a defensible position.
Audit pressure is no longer a distant or theoretical concern. It is immediate, visible, and increasingly binary. Either positions are robust and evidenced, or they risk formal audit consequences.
Authorities that treat treasury as a technical back-office function are more likely to encounter issues. Those that recognise its central role in financial reporting and capital strategy are better positioned to achieve clean audit outcomes.
At Arlingclose we work closely with clients during their closedown process, and our experience can add value through additional support including:
If you are concerned about any of these issues, or your auditors are taking a keen interest in your treasury accounting, contact info@arlingclose.com to see how we can help.
29/04/2026
Related Insights
How Should Organisations Calculate Expected Credit Losses?
How Do You Apply Capital Reciepts To Reduce Your MRP Charge?