wlwa audit plan 2008 - democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk

WEST LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY REPORT OF THE TREASURER AND DIRECTOR 25 JUNE 2008 EXTERNAL AUDIT PLAN FOR THE 2007-2008 ACCOUNTS Recommendation That the information in this report be noted. 1. The accounts of the Authority are subject to annual external audit under the Accounts and

Audit Regulations. Currently the external auditor is Deloitte and Touche LLP appointed by the Audit Commission.

2. 2006-2007: The audit of the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2007 was completed

and reported to the Authority in October 2007 with an unqualified opinion given by the Auditor. The Annual Audit letter noted that the Authority had continued to manage its expenditure within budget and that the financial standing of the Authority was healthy.

3. 2007-2008: Your officers have held discussions with the external auditor on the audit

requirements for the 2007-2008 accounts. The auditor’s principal objective is to carry out an audit that meets the Audit Commission’s Code of Audit Practice and that the work is relevant to address the operational and financial risks faced by the Authority. The work will include the financial accounts audit, financial aspects of corporate governance and Whole Government Accounts. The level of audit coverage is consistent with the work actioned for 2006-2007. The external audit plan is set out in Appendix 1 and the proposed fee of £27,810 will be met from the approved budget. The auditor has not been asked to action any additional work or reviews.

4. The public inspection period for the draft accounts has yet to be agreed with the external

auditor but is likely to be during August. The Accounts and Audit Regulations also require that a further report be submitted to the Authority if there are any material amendments to the accounts arising from the audit.

5. Issue of the audit opinion is planned to be made by no later than 30 September 2008. The

audit opinion will be reported to the Authority and cover such matters as accounting practices, financial reporting, internal control systems, current and ongoing key issues and risks and any other matters considered significant that arise during the audit.

6. With regard to the 2007-2008 accounts the required latest date of publication following audit

under the Regulations is 30 September and the accounts will be published as part of the agenda for the Authority meeting proposed for 1 October. The external auditor will be invited to attend this meeting and present the audit findings.

Barry Evans - Treasurer Mike Nicholls - Director Background Papers Annual Audit Letter to the Authority: October 2007 (re: 2006-2007 accounts) Contact Points Barry Evans (WLWA) Tel. 020-8847-5555 Mike Nicholls (WLWA) Tel. 020-8847-5555

West London Waste Authority

Audit Plan for the year to

31 March 2008

April 2008

Mike

Text Box

APPENDIX 1

Contents

Executive summary 1

1. Scope of work and approach 4

2. Key areas of audit focus 5

3. Consideration of fraud 10

4. Internal control 12

5. Value for Money Arrangements 13

7. Timetable 14

9. Audit quality 15

10. Audit fees 16

11. Responsibility statement 17

Appendix 1: Audit Objectives 18

Appendix 2: Materiality 19

Appendix 3: Independence policies and procedures 21

1 © 2008 Deloitte & Touche LLP

Executive summary

Introduction We have pleasure in setting out in this document details of our proposed audit plan for the West London Waste Authority for the year ending 31 March 2008.

Scope of the audit Our audit will be carried out under the Audit Commission’s Code of Audit Practice, under which we are responsible for:

• giving an opinion on the financial statements; and

• concluding on the Authority’s arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources.

We also need to complete a review of the Whole of Government Accounts pack for submission. This work will be completed in accordance with the work programmes issued by the Audit Commission and an opinion will be issued to the Authority and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

This audit plan sets out how we plan to approach each of our main areas of responsibility, the areas of risk or audit focus that we have identified and our planned audit response

Materiality Materiality levels continue to be calculated on the basis of gross income, and the monetary value will be determined upon receipt of draft financial statements. We will report to the Authority Members on all unadjusted misstatements greater than 2% of materiality.


Key areas of audit focus

The key audit risks and issues which we have identified as part of our overall audit strategy are:

1. Presumed risk of fraud in revenue recognition.

2. Pension liability.

3. Review of the documentation and implementation of the key controls over the business cycles.

4. The financial reporting process, including review of a sample of journals.

5. Accounting for the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.

6. Annual Governance Statement.

7. Best Value Performance Indicators.

8. Whole of Government Accounts.

Reporting The Code of Audit Practice provide for us to report to Members our key audit findings, conclusions and any unrecorded adjustments and disclosures. In addition to this report, it provides for a short annual audit letter, on completion of all our audit work.


Executive Summary (continued)

Timetable We propose that the audit fieldwork will commence on 14 July 2008, which will enable audit and accounts completion by the deadline of 30 September 2008.

Client service team Under our partner rotation, Paul Schofield will be replacing Nigel Johnson as audit partner and Andrea Ragless will be the audit manager.

Independence Deloitte have developed important safeguards and procedures in order to ensure our independence and objectivity.

Specific safeguards are set out in the “Independence policies and procedures” appendix.

We will reconfirm our independence and objectivity to the Members for the year ending 31 March 2008 in our final report to the Members.

Fees We propose an audit fee of £27,810 (2007 £28,500), based on the 3% increase advised by the Audit Commission. An analysis of this fee is included in the “Fees” Section.


1. Scope of work and approach

Our audit objectives are consistent with last year and are set out in appendix 1.

The audit opinion we intend to issue will reflect the financial reporting framework adopted by the Authority.

SORP

We do not consider there to be any significant new developments within the Local Authority SORP that directly affect the Authority. We have recognised that each constituent Borough of the Authority will have to consider the relationship they have with the Authority to

determine if the Authority should be treated as a joint venture or related entity.

International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland)

We will conduct our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) (“ISA plus”) as issued by the UK

Auditing Practices Board (“APB”). There are no planned changes to the audit approach adopted for the 2007 audit, but we will keep you

informed of any amendments.


2. Key areas of audit focus

Based upon our initial assessment, we will concentrate specific audit effort on the following areas:

Key issue Background

Presumed risk of fraud in revenue

recognition

Under ISA plus 240, there is a presumption that revenue recognition is a specific risk.

We have considered the revenue recognition for the Authority, and conclude that the area where the risk of fraud and error is most significant relates to recoverability.

Deloitte Response

We will address this presumed risk by documenting and evidencing the mitigating controls in place to ensure that charges are agreed and debts are pursued.


Pension liability disclosures

The Authority’s accounts disclose a liability for the pension commitments for future years. In our annual audit letter following the 2006/07 audit, we recommended that the Authority should keep under review the assumptions used by the scheme actuaries and confirm their suitability each year as there are changes arising in some of the relevant areas traditionally countered by actuaries.

Deloitte Response

We will seek the involvement of our pensions specialist team in order to review and assess the disclosures in the accounts and the actuarial assumptions underlying these in order to gain assurance over the accuracy and reliability of the figures presented.



Key controls Under ISA plus 315, we are required to evaluate the design of the key controls over business processes, and to determine whether these controls have been implemented.

Deloitte Response

We will update our understanding of the systems in place controlling the key processes in the income and expenditure and related financial cycles.

This will include establishing the controls in place to achieve segregation of duties and to identify related party transactions. We will seek to have regard to any relevant internal audit work performed on these main financial cycles.


Financial reporting and close process

We need to consider the controls in place over the financial reporting and close process, as this is considered an area where the risk of management override of controls is high.

Deloitte Response

We will document the procedures in place controlling the financial reporting and close process, including review and authorisation controls.

Our testing will include a sample of journals processed both throughout the year and as part of the financial reporting process at the year end. The aim of this testing is to determine the review and approval processes in place, and how supporting documentation is maintained.



Accounting for the Landfill Allowance

Trading Scheme

This is the third year in which WLWA will account for the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme in accordance with the guidelines issued by CIPFA.

Deloitte Response

We will review the WLWA calculations of the required disclosures in the accounts in light of the latest guidance issued by CIPFA on this area.



Annual Governance

Statement

In reviewing the Authority’s published Annual Governance Statement, we consider the overall arrangements you have in place to ensure:

� the legality of transactions that might have significant financial consequences;

� the financial standing of the authority;

� systems of internal control; and

� standards of financial conduct and the prevention and detection of fraud and corruption.

It is your responsibility to put adequate arrangements in place. We review these arrangements, reporting where appropriate.

Deloitte Response

Review arrangements to monitor the financial standing of the Authority, paying attention to performance in the year, the ability to meet known obligations and responses to future developments, reporting in the Audit Letter.

Check that budgets take into account likely impacts of new legislation and that a long term strategy is agreed with local councils.

Consider whether the Authority's arrangements as described in the Statement on Internal Control are adequate to satisfy itself that its systems of internal control are adequate and effective in practice.

Read the Authority’s minutes of meetings and review the members’ and officers’ declarations of interest to check for any circumstances of misconduct or misreporting of related party interests.

We review specific internal audit work, carry out walk-through testing to document our understanding of financial and general computer controls.

Assess the adequacy of the overall arrangements for internal audit, considering independence from management; extent of audit coverage both in the year under review and over a period of years; and confirm that work is carried out to a professional standard.

Report any weaknesses found to officers or members (as appropriate) and consider the impact on our approach to the audit.

It is not the auditors' function to prevent or detect breaches of proper standards of financial conduct, or fraud and corruption. However, if we become aware of weaknesses in this are we will report these to officers and members.



Best Value Performance

Indicators

There is no requirement for the 2008/09 Best Value Performance Plan to be produced and audited. However, we will still need to carry out our testing of the Best Value Performance Indicators.

Deloitte Response

We will carry out our testing of the Performance Indicators as part of our main audit visit and report on these by September.


Whole of Government

Accounts

2005/06 was the first year in which audited Whole of Government Accounts (“WGA”) returns were submitted as part of this “dry run” of the process.

2006/07 was the first year in which the WGA process was “live” and the audit requirement is the same for 2007/08.

Deloitte Response

We will complete a review of the Authority’s return in accordance with the guidance to be issued by the Audit Commission.


3. Consideration of fraud

The primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud rests with management and those charged with governance,

including establishing and maintaining internal controls over the reliability of financial reporting, effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. As auditors, we obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that the financial

statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error.

Corporate Governance and fraud

ISA Plus 240 – ‘The auditor’s responsibility to consider fraud in an audit of financial statements’ requires us to document an

understanding of how those charged with governance exercise oversight of management's processes for identifying and responding to the

risks of fraud in the Authority and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks.

We will make inquiries of management, internal audit and others within the group as appropriate, regarding their knowledge of any

actual, plus suspected or alleged fraud affecting the Authority. In addition we are required to discuss the following with those in charge of governance in the Authority:

1. Whether the Members have knowledge of any fraud or suspected fraud?

2. The role that the Members exercise in oversight of:

• the assessment of the risks of fraud; and

• the design and implementation of internal control to prevent and detect fraud?

3. The Members’ assessment of the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud.

We will be seeking representations in this area from the Members in due course.


3. Consideration of Fraud (continued)

Management override of controls

In addition to the procedures above we are required to design and perform audit procedures to respond to the risk of management’s

override of controls which will include:

• having understood and evaluated the financial reporting process and the controls over journal entries and other adjustments made

in the preparation of the financial statements, test the appropriateness of a sample of such entries and adjustments.

• a review of accounting estimates for biases that could result in material misstatement due to fraud, including whether any

differences between estimates best supported by evidence and those in the financial statements, even if individually reasonable, indicate a possible bias on the part of management. We will also perform a retrospective review of management’s judgements and

assumptions relating to significant estimates reflected in last year’s financial statements. We will focus on provisions made against

doubtful debts; and

• obtain an understanding of the business rationale of significant transactions that we become aware of that are outside the normal course of business or that otherwise appear to be unusual given our understanding of the Authority and its environment.

We are also required to presume that there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition and conduct our audit testing accordingly. (See

Areas of audit focus in section 2).


4. Internal control

Obtaining an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit

Previous UK auditing standards required us to document our understanding of your business and assess the risk of material

misstatement. The ISA pluses take this one stage further. For controls considered to be ‘relevant to the audit’ we are required to evaluate

the design of the controls and determine whether they have been implemented (“D& I”).

The controls that are determined to be relevant to the audit are those:

• where we plan to obtain assurance through operating effectiveness;

• relating to identified risks (including the risk of fraud in revenue recognition) or areas of audit focus (as detailed in section 2); and

• where we are unable to obtain sufficient audit assurance through substantive procedures alone.

The results of our work in obtaining an understanding of controls and any subsequent testing of the operational effectiveness of controls

will be collated and the impact on the extent of substantive audit testing required will be considered.

Our audit is not designed to provide assurance as to the overall effectiveness of the controls operating within the Authority, although we

will report to management and Members any recommendations on controls that we may have identified during the course of our audit work.

Liaison with internal audit

We will again seek to place reliance on work undertaken by Internal Audit to maximise our combined effectiveness and eliminate

duplication of effort. This co-ordination will ensure that we derive benefit from the internal audit findings, their systems documentation and risk identification during the planning of the external audit.

The audit team, following an assessment of the organisational status, scope of function, technical competence and due professional care

of the internal audit function, review the findings of internal audit and adjust the audit approach as is deemed appropriate. Where

internal audit identifies specific material deficiencies in the control environment, we consider adjusting our testing to ensure that the audit risk is covered by our work.


5. Value for Money Arrangements

The Code of Audit Practice provides for us to conclude explicitly on the Authority’s overall arrangements to secure value for money in the

conduct of its business. The Audit Commission has developed some criteria for auditors to apply in arriving at this conclusion. These are publicly available. We encourage the Authority to undertake a self-assessment against these criteria so that they are prepared for our

assessment, including gathering the relevant supporting documentation together for our review.

6. Reporting

We are required to report to those charged with governance (the Members of the Authority in your case) the outcome of our audit work

on the annual accounts prior to them being finalised. This is to allow Members to know where judgement has been applied in their preparation, whether any unadjusted items have been identified by the audit and the form of opinion proposed by the auditors.

This report will also include comment on any internal control issues we have found and whether we have satisfied ourselves on the

Authority’s value for money arrangements.

In addition to the above, the Code requires us to submit a brief annual audit letter summarising our key findings and conclusions.


7. Timetable

Set out below is the approximate expected timing of our reporting and communication.

Final Audit Visit Commences 14 July 2008 (proposed)

Completion of accounts By 30 September 2008

Annual Audit Letter By 31 December 2008

Performance Indicators During final audit visit, to report in September

Best Value Performance Plan Opinion By 31 December 2008

Audit Opinion on the Whole of Government Accounts October 2008 (to be confirmed)

8. Client Service Team

Under our partner rotation rules, Paul Schofield will replace Nigel Johnson as Audit Partner. Andrea Ragless will remain as Audit Manager.


9. Audit quality

The corporate governance environment has become more challenging:

• Stakeholders and the public are demanding greater transparency and accountability;

• Increased independent oversight of auditors; and

• The financial and performance reporting rules and regulations are becoming increasingly complex and onerous.

This results in the following:

• Increased scrutiny by outside parties; and

• Increased responsibilities for Members to see that effective governance arrangements are in place.

A quality audit is an essential part of building and reinforcing trust in the financial information you release in public.

Our audits are designed to be of a high quality and we have maintained an excellent claims record. We have always acknowledged, and

continue to acknowledge, that we need to improve continually our audits and respond to changes in the environment.

We have revised our audit methodology to ensure it takes into account the changing requirements of auditing standards and adopts a risk

based approach. We utilise technology in an efficient way to provide maximum value to the Authority whilst minimising a “box ticking” approach.

Our audit methodology is designed to give Members and officers the confidence that they deserve.


10. Audit fees

We summarise below our proposed audit fees agreed with management:-

2008 £

2007 £

Financial Accounts audit 17,510 17,000

Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance 5,750 5,600

BVPP and Performance Data Quality 3,000 4,400

Whole of Government Accounts 1,550 1,500

Total 27,810 28,500


11. Responsibility statement

This report has been prepared solely on the basis of our initial planning activities for our audit, and as such does not constitute a

comprehensive review of any weaknesses in existing systems.

We view this report as part of our service to the Authority and its Members for corporate governance purposes and it is to you alone that

we owe a responsibility for its contents. We accept no duty, responsibility or liability to any other person as the report has not been prepared, and is not intended, for any other purpose. In the event that a third party asks to see this report, please ask for our consent

before releasing it.

Deloitte & Touche LLP Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors

St Albans

April 2008


Appendix 1: Audit Objectives

Primary audit objectives

Our statutory audit objectives are:

• to express an opinion to the Members on the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2008;

• to form an opinion on whether proper accounting records have been kept by the Authority

• to review the content of the Annual Governance Statement and comment in our audit report if we detect any material inconsistency with our knowledge and evidence;

• to reach a conclusion on whether the Authority has had arrangements in place to secure value for money in the performance of its business; and

• to express an opinion on the Authority’s Best Value Performance Indicators.

Other reporting objectives

Our reporting objectives are to:

• present significant reporting findings to the Members. This will highlight key judgements, important accounting policies and

estimates and the application of new reporting requirements, as well as significant control observations;

• provide timely and constructive letters of recommendation. This will include key business process improvements and significant controls weaknesses identified during our audit; and

• undertake audit procedures as required by the Audit Commission in respect of performance data quality and report our findings to the Audit Commission, as well as to the Authority.


Appendix 2: Materiality

Concept and definition

The concept of materiality is fundamental to the preparation of the financial statements and the audit process and applies not only to

monetary misstatements but also to disclosure requirements and adherence to appropriate accounting principles and statutory

requirements.

"Materiality" is defined in the International Accounting Standards Board's "Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements" in the following terms:

"Information is material if its omission or misstatement could influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements. Materiality depends on the size of the item or error judged in the particular circumstances of its omission or misstatement.

Thus, materiality provides a threshold or cut-off point rather than being a primary qualitative characteristic which information must have

if it is to be useful."

Calculation and determination

We have determined planning materiality based on professional judgment in the context of our knowledge of the Authority, including

consideration of factors such as stakeholder expectations, sector developments, financial stability and reporting requirements for the financial statements.

We determine planning materiality in order to:

� determine the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures; and

� evaluate the effect of misstatements.

For the 2005/06 financial statements, we have used the latest forecast gross income as the benchmark for our materiality assessment as in the prior year, as this benchmark is deemed to be a key driver of business value, is a critical component of the financial statements

and is a focus for users of those statements.

As a guideline, the 2007 materiality level was calculated at £303,000.


Appendix 2: Materiality (continued)

Unadjusted errors

In accordance with auditing standards, we will communicate to the Members all unadjusted items identified during our audit, other than

those which we believe are clearly trivial.

Auditing standards do not place numeric limits on the meaning of ‘clearly trivial’. Taking into account our previous discussions with the management, we are of the opinion that 2% of materiality is an appropriate limit for ‘clearly trivial’. Accordingly in our report to the Members we will report all individual identified unadjusted misstatements in excess of this limit and other identified errors in aggregate.

We will consider identified misstatements in qualitative as well as quantitative terms.


Appendix 3: Independence policies and procedures

Important safeguards and procedures have been developed by Deloitte to counter threats or perceived threats to our objectivity, which

include the items set out below.

Safeguards and procedures

� Every opinion (not just statutory audit opinions) issued by Deloitte is subject to technical review by a member of our independent Professional Standards Review unit.

� Review and challenge takes place of key decisions by the Second Partner and by the Independent Review Partner, which goes beyond auditing standards, and ensures the objectivity of our judgement is maintained.

� We report annually to the Members our assessment of objectivity and independence. This report includes a summary of any non-audit services provided together with fees receivable.

� There is formal consideration and review of the appropriateness of continuing the audit engagement before accepting reappointment.

� Periodic rotation takes place of the audit engagement partner, the independent review partner and key audit partners in accordance with our policies and professional and regulatory requirements.

� In accordance with the Ethical Standards issued by the APB, there is an assessment of the level of threat to objectivity and potential safeguards to combat these threats prior to acceptance of any non-audit engagement. This would include particular focus on threats arising from self-interest, self-review, management, advocacy, over-familiarity and intimidation.

� In the UK, statutory oversight and regulation of auditors is carried out by the Professional Oversight Board for Accountancy (POBA) which is an operating body of the Financial Reporting Council. The Firm’s policies and procedures are subject to external monitoring by both the Audit Inspection Unit (AIU), which is a division of POBA, and the ICAEW’s Quality Assurance Directorate (QAD). The AIU is charged with monitoring the quality of audits of economically significant entities and the QAD with monitoring statutory compliance of audits for all other entities. Both report to the ICAEW’s Audit Registration Committee. The AIU also reports to POBA and can inform the Financial Reporting Review Panel of concerns it has with the accounts of individual companies. The AIU and QAD do not publish individual inspection reports and we are not permitted to disclose details of their findings. For the Authority, our audit and the quality control standards we apply are specifically overseen by the Audit Commission’s own quality review process. We receive an annual summary from them which sets out their findings and conclusion on our audit quality control arrangements.


Appendix 3: Independence policies and procedures (continued)

Independence policies

Our detailed ethical policies’ standards and independence policies are issued to all partners and employees who are required to confirm their compliance annually. We are also required to comply with the policies of other relevant professional and regulatory bodies.

Amongst other things, these policies:

� state that no Deloitte partner (or any closely-related person) is allowed to hold a financial interest in any of our UK audit clients;

� require that professional staff (or any closely-related person) may not work on assignments if they have a financial interest in the client or a party to the transaction or if they have a beneficial interest in a trust holding a financial position in the client;

� state that no person in a position to influence the conduct and outcome of the audit (or any closely related persons) should enter into business relationships with UK audit clients or their affiliates;

� prohibit any professional employee from obtaining gifts from clients unless the value is clearly insignificant; and

� provide safeguards against potential conflicts of interest.

Remuneration and evaluation

policies

Partners are evaluated on roles and responsibilities they take within the firm including their technical ability and their ability to manage risk.



Specific independence issues and safeguards

We are not aware of any specific issues which impact on our independence or require safeguards to be put in place.

Confirmation of independence

In our professional judgement we are independent within the meaning of the APB Ethical Standards and the objectivity of the audit

engagement partner and audit staff is not compromised.

Use of auditors for non-audit services

We are not aware of any cases where we have, or plan to, perform non-audit services for the West London Waste Authority.



New APB Ethical Standards

On 5 October 2004, the Auditing Practices Board (APB) issued five new ethical standards for auditors that are significantly more detailed and complex than previous guidance in this area, continue to apply a ‘threats’ and ‘safeguards’ approach and are effective for audits of

financial statements for periods commencing on or after 15 December 2004.

The five standards cover:

• maintaining integrity, objectivity and independence;

• financial, business, employment and personal relationships between auditors and their clients;

• long association of audit partners and other audit team members with audit engagements;

• audit fees, remuneration and evaluation of the audit team, litigation between auditors and their clients, and gifts and hospitality

received from audit clients; and

• non-audit services provided to audit clients.

Significant changes include:

• specific requirements for auditors of listed companies to provide details in writing of threats to objectivity and independence and safeguards that are in place;

• the need for more frequent communication with you about matters that might bear upon our objectivity and independence, should

they arise; and

• the requirement for us to communicate with auditors in other countries, seeking confirmation of the application of your non-audit

service policy.

Our internal policies and procedures have been updated to reflect compliance with these new standards.

© 2005 Deloitte & Touche LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303675.

A list of members’ names is available for inspection at Stonecutter Court, 1 Stonecutter Street, London EC4A 4TR, United Kingdom, the firm’s principal place of business and registered office.

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7936 3000 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7583 1198.

Deloitte & Touche LLP is a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is a Swiss Verein (association), and, as such, neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other’s acts

or omissions. Each member firm is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the names “Deloitte”, “Deloitte & Touche”, “Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu”, or other, related names. The services described herein are provided by the member firms and not by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein.

Deloitte & Touche LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

wlwa audit plan 2008 - democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk

Documents