Andrew Stevenson & Janet Stevenson

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Prime & Co was a partnership between Andrew Stevenson (First Respondent, COLP/COFA) and Janet Stevenson (Second Respondent). An SRA forensic investigation revealed multiple, long-running Accounts Rules breaches, including improper retention of dormant client balances (approx £121,270 held in matters dormant over 12 months), failure to notify clients, failure to obtain accountant's reports for nearly eight years (a deliberate cost-cutting decision driven by the Firm's financial difficulties amid a long HMRC/VAT dispute), failure to remedy and report breaches, and failure to notify the SRA of serious financial difficulty. Both Respondents admitted all allegations, including manifest incompetence; the First Respondent also admitted lack of integrity. No dishonesty was alleged or found. The Tribunal found all allegations proved and, following Iqbal, held that manifest incompetence required at least suspension. The First Respondent (more culpable) was suspended 18 months; the Second Respondent (reduced culpability, no lack of integrity) 6 months. Although costs of £23,965.20 were sought and the Tribunal would have ordered costs in full (two-thirds/one-third apportionment), it made no order as to costs, applying Barnes, because the Respondents' means meant any order would never realistically be paid.

Duties found breached:

• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Self-report to the regulator
• Report serious misconduct of others
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct continued over many years
• Conduct was to an extent deliberate, calculated and repeated
• First Respondent held COLP and COFA roles with particular compliance responsibilities
• First Respondent knew or ought to have known he was in material breach
• First Respondent sought to influence the Second Respondent regarding the decision not to obtain accountant's reports
• One previous Tribunal finding against First Respondent (2006), though given little weight

Mitigating factors:

• Genuine remorse and insight
• Full, open and frank admissions at an early stage
• Full responsibility taken
• Respondents making good the breaches and winding down the Firm in a responsible, orderly manner
• No evidence of loss to individual clients or claims on the Compensation Fund
• First Respondent's ill health and long-running HMRC dispute
• Second Respondent had reduced culpability, no lack of integrity and no previous findings