2026/27 municipal reporting cycle
Physical asset verification made simple: how AssetVerify360 turns the annual count into audit evidence
Most municipalities with asset findings did count their assets. What was missing was evidence of who saw each one, where it was and what state it was in.
A count on paper proves only that someone ticked a list. Verification software that is difficult to use can leave duplicate scans and data that is close to impossible to clean. AssetVerify360 was built to deal with both.
The problem with the annual verification
In 129 municipalities, or 51%, fixed and movable assets were materially misstated in the statements submitted for auditing. That is the finding of the Auditor-General's general report on the 2024/25 local government audit outcomes. Property, plant and equipment is usually the largest figure on a municipality's statement of financial position, and it is one of the areas where audits most often go wrong.
In our experience, most municipalities with asset findings did verify their assets. What came back did not show who saw each asset, where it was or what state it was in. When the auditors asked for support, the finance team had numbers and very little evidence.
Two ways a verification breaks down
On paper. A signed count sheet shows that someone says they saw the asset. It cannot show when, where or in what condition, and nobody can check it afterwards without going back to the asset. Often assets are matched by description and missing assets come to light only weeks later, when the sheets are captured. Every result is then retyped into the register.
On difficult software. Moving the verification onto a handheld device should fix this, but it often brings problems of its own. These are the four we hear most from municipalities that come to us after a difficult verification on other software:
- Several people verify the same asset, and the software accepts every scan without warning.
- There is no way to track the verification. Nobody can see which sites are finished or who verified what.
- The data is close to impossible to clean. The export is full of duplicates and free text, and it does not map back to the register without rework.
- The software cannot be customised to the municipality's own asset classes, locations and condition ratings.
How AssetVerify360 makes it simple
We built AssetVerify360 for our own physical asset verification projects. It is still the platform we use on our engagements. Municipalities and other public entities also license it directly.
It works from your own register. We import it and reconcile it to the general ledger, listing any differences, before anyone goes to site. Asset classes, locations, custodians and condition ratings follow your register and your asset management policy.
Every asset is verified where it stands. The verifier scans the barcode or QR code on a phone or tablet, takes a photograph, rates the condition and confirms the custodian. The record carries the time and the GPS position. The app works without signal and syncs when the device reconnects.
One asset, one verification. When a second person scans an asset that has already been verified, the scan is shown as a repeat. Duplicate scans are picked up during the project and not after it.
Impairment is tested on the go. While the verifier is standing in front of the asset, the app tests it for the indicators of impairment that can be seen in the field. Examples are physical damage, obsolescence and an asset that is no longer in use. An asset that shows an indicator is flagged on the spot, with the photograph and the reason. The finance team adds the indicators that cannot be seen on site and tests the flagged assets under GRAP 21 or GRAP 26. An impairment loss is recognised wherever the carrying amount exceeds the recoverable amount or recoverable service amount.
You can see progress while the verification is running. Management can follow how much has been verified, which sites are outstanding and how many exceptions are open. Assets that cannot be found, and assets on site that are not on the register, are raised while the team is still there to investigate them.
The data comes back in a form you can use. Each record is captured by scan and in set fields, which removes most of the cleaning. Once the results have been reviewed and the adjustments approved, the verified data is written back to the register, which is then reconciled to the ledger again.
The judgements stay with the municipality. An asset that cannot be found is investigated, and derecognised only once that is approved under the municipality's delegations. An asset found on site is investigated before anything is capitalised.
What you have at the end
- A scanned record for each asset verified, with a timestamped photograph, the GPS position and who verified it
- A list of the assets found on site that were not on the register, and how each one was resolved
- An exception register for the assets that could not be found
- A condition summary and a list of the assets flagged with impairment indicators
- The updated register, reconciled to the general ledger
The auditors will still inspect a sample of assets themselves. This evidence makes it quicker for them to agree their sample to your records.
There is more to see
This article is only an insight into AssetVerify360, and the app can do more than we have covered here. To see the rest, book a demo on WhatsApp or through our contact form, and we will show it to you on a sample of your own asset data.
Where we help. Ambition Partners Advisory prepares and reviews GRAP-compliant fixed asset registers for municipalities and municipal entities, and physically verifies assets for them and for departments. We can run the verification with your team on AssetVerify360, or license the platform for your own staff to use. Read about our fixed asset register service and AssetVerify360, or message us on WhatsApp.
Sources
- Auditor-General of South Africa, Consolidated general report on local government audit outcomes, MFMA 2024/25 (executive summary)
- Accounting Standards Board, GRAP 17, GRAP 21 and GRAP 26, and the Frequently Asked Questions on the Standards of GRAP (May 2025)
- National Treasury, Local Government Capital Asset Management Guideline (2008)
Accounting treatments depend on the facts and the applicable GRAP requirements.
Frequently asked questions
Do our assets have to be barcoded before we start?
No. Barcoding is recommended because a scan is more reliable than matching by description, but assets can be tagged during the first verification cycle.
How often should assets be physically verified?
Movable assets should be verified every year. Where the whole infrastructure network cannot be inspected annually, a rolling cycle is common, provided it is written into the asset management policy and confirmed with the auditors. Useful lives and impairment indicators are still assessed every year, whatever the cycle.
Can we license the platform without appointing you for advisory work?
Yes. The platform is licensed separately. We will tell you whether we think your team has the capacity to run the verification on its own.
Discuss your municipality’s requirements
Ambition Partners Advisory is a Chartered Accountant (SA) led practice working with municipalities, municipal entities, government departments and public entities across South Africa. Tell us where you are in the reporting cycle and we will send you a scope, timeline and fee.