Have You Outgrown Your Auditor? Five Signs It May Be Time for a Change

Most organisations do not wake up one morning and decide to replace their auditor. In my experience, the decision usually builds over time. 

A finance manager becomes frustrated by another round of rushed information requests. A chief executive notices the audit feels harder each year, even though the organisation is better organised. A board member asks a reasonable question and struggles to get a clear answer. Nothing has gone badly wrong, but there is a growing sense that the relationship is no longer working as well as it should. 

A good audit relationship should improve over time. As your auditor gets to know the organisation, planning should become more focused, communication should become easier and unnecessary friction should reduce. 

If the opposite is happening, it may be time to ask whether the organisation has outgrown its auditor. 

1. Your auditor no longer understands how the organisation operates

Organisations change. They grow, take on new funding arrangements, replace systems, expand services and respond to new reporting obligations. The audit approach needs to keep up. 

One of the clearest signs of a poor fit is when the questions being asked suggest the auditor is still looking at the organisation as it was several years ago. The audit may still be technically sound, but it is being conducted through an outdated lens. 

Your auditor should understand: 

• How the organisation has changed 

• Where the main risks and pressure points now sit 

• Which reporting obligations matter most 

• What management and the board need from the process 

• How your sector and operating environment affect the work 

That understanding does not happen automatically. It comes from asking good questions, listening to the answers and adjusting the audit plan accordingly. 

If your team spends a large part of every audit re-explaining how the organisation works, the relationship may no longer be keeping pace.

2. You only hear from your auditor when the audit starts

Many organisations accept limited contact outside audit season as normal. I do not think it produces the best result. 

This does not mean filling the calendar with meetings. It means having the important conversations early enough to be useful. A new system, major transaction, change in funding or difficult accounting issue is easier to work through before year-end than during fieldwork. 

The best audit engagements are often the least dramatic. By the time fieldwork begins, both sides understand the timetable, the areas requiring attention and the evidence that will be needed. There may still be questions, but there should be fewer surprises. 

When communication only starts once the request list arrives, both sides are already playing catch-up. 

Your auditor should not be involved in management decisions, but independence does not prevent timely, practical conversations about what has changed and what the audit will require. 

3. Every audit feels harder than the one before

A more complex organisation will usually require more audit work. That is understandable. What is worth examining is whether the process itself is becoming unnecessarily difficult. 

You may notice that: 

• The same information is requested more than once 
• Requests arrive in stages without a clear overall plan 

• Deadlines change without enough explanation 

• More people are drawn into answering routine questions 

• Issues that should have been identified during planning emerge late 

• Your team spends more time managing the audit than responding to it 

Some of this may point to gaps within the organisation. Some may point to an audit approach that is no longer efficient. The important thing is to work out which it is. 

A long-term audit relationship should create useful knowledge on both sides. The auditor should know where to focus, and your team should understand what is expected. If the process becomes more cumbersome every year despite everyone working harder, it is reasonable to challenge why. 

4. Your board is not getting clear answers

Boards do not necessarily need longer reports. They need clear explanations of what matters, why it matters and what deserves attention next. 

In board and committee discussions, the auditor should be able to explain the significant matters in practical language. Technical detail is sometimes necessary, but it should support understanding rather than get in the way of it. 

Directors will often want to know:

• What changed from the previous year 
• Which matters required the most judgement 

• Where the auditor encountered difficulty 

• Whether any issues point to a broader concern 

• What the board should continue to monitor 

A board meeting should not become a test of who understands the most technical language. It should give directors a clearer view of the audit and the matters relevant to their oversight responsibilities. 

If board members regularly leave audit discussions with more questions than answers, the issue may be communication rather than technical capability. 

5. The relationship has become transactional

This is often the point at which organisations begin seriously considering a change. 

When an audit relationship is working well, people know who to contact. Questions are answered within a reasonable time. Senior members of the team remain involved. Difficult issues can be discussed openly and respectfully. Both sides understand the need to use each other’s time well. 

When those qualities disappear, the audit can start to feel like a series of requests moving between people who do not know the organisation well and do not have much opportunity to build trust. 

Independence is essential, but distance is not. An auditor can remain objective while still being accessible, responsive and straightforward to deal with. 

Technical expertise is the starting point. The quality of the working relationship determines whether that expertise is applied in a way that works for the organisation. 

What should a better audit relationship look like?

Changing auditors is a significant decision. Before going to tender, it is worth being clear about what is not working and what you want to improve. 

I would look for an auditor who: 

• Takes the time to understand the organisation before deciding where to focus 

• Plans early and sets clear expectations 

• Keeps senior people involved when their experience is needed 

• Explains issues in practical language 

• Communicates throughout the year when circumstances require it 

• Runs an organised process and respects the time of your team 

• Maintains independence without becoming remote or difficult to access 

The lowest fee or the most polished proposal will not necessarily deliver the best relationship. The better question is whether the audit team has the experience, approach and communication style to work effectively with your organisation. 

Is it time to make a change?

One difficult audit does not necessarily mean the relationship has failed. There may be new requirements, staff changes or unusual transactions that make a particular year more demanding. A long-standing auditor may also hold valuable knowledge about the organisation. 

The concern is when frustration becomes a pattern and honest conversations do not lead to improvement. 

If your auditor no longer understands how the organisation operates, communication is limited, the audit becomes harder each year or the relationship feels increasingly transactional, it may be time to consider whether the fit is still right. 

Most firms can complete an audit. The real difference is how well the audit team understands your organisation, how clearly it communicates and how effectively it manages the relationship while maintaining its independence. 

At Bentleys, we aim to make the audit process clear, organised and constructive. If you are reviewing your current provider or preparing for an audit tender, speak with the Bentleys Audit Team about what a better audit relationship could look like for your organisation.