CIMA Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
Unclaimed Business
|1|2 Reviews (last 12 months)|This business does not respond to reviews
CIMA Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
Unclaimed Business
|1
2 Reviews (last 12 months)
Does not respond to reviews
Review Distribution
1|2 Reviews
Oct '25 - Sep '26
Recent reviews (2)
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your ExperienceAC
Anton C
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2025
29 Apr 2026, 09:15
Poor Customer Service for Special Pathway Enrollments in South Africa
Have been trying to get clarity on exemptions and enroll for CGMA since 2 March 2026. Finally got indication on the exact pathway (CFO Pathway) but have been waiting for more than a month for the Special Pathways team to enroll me formally. The exemptions team have even followed up with the Special Pathway team (***) and up to date no reply. I think it is poor practice for an International Institute to have this kind of service from the representative agencies in South Africa.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)AC
Anton C
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2025
29 Apr 2026, 09:15
Poor Customer Service for Special Pathway Enrollments in South Africa
Have been trying to get clarity on exemptions and enroll for CGMA since 2 March 2026. Finally got indication on the exact pathway (CFO Pathway) but have been waiting for more than a month for the Special Pathways team to enroll me formally. The exemptions team have even followed up with the Special Pathway team (***) and up to date no reply. I think it is poor practice for an International Institute to have this kind of service from the representative agencies in South Africa.
0
Replies (0)KD
Kwanele D
1 reviews | Active since Feb 2026
13 Feb 2026, 11:28
Conflicting Information & Outdated ID Requirements – CIMA
I am extremely frustrated by the inconsistent and confusing communication I have received from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) regarding secondary identification for my exam. From the beginning, I clearly explained that I do not have a driver’s licence. I requested accommodation for a secondary form of identification — not primary identification. Despite this, I have received conflicting guidance from different consultants. At one stage, I was told that a bank card could be accepted. Now I am being told that the signature on the back of the card is required. This is concerning for several reasons: 1. Bank cards are not used as formal identity verification documents anywhere. 2. Modern bank cards no longer require signatures on the back — this has largely been phased out due to chip-and-PIN and contactless technology. 3. Bank cards are linked to official IDs within banking systems, and I clearly stated that I am willing to provide an official bank letter confirming my identity. It is confusing why such strict emphasis is being placed on secondary identification when the primary identification requirements are being met. The purpose of secondary ID should be supplementary, not an additional barrier. What is most concerning is that different consultants appear to provide different answers, suggesting there is no internal alignment or clear policy communication. As a global professional body, CIMA should ensure its representatives are properly informed and consistent. Exam bookings are expensive. Students should not face the risk of being turned away due to unclear or outdated administrative requirements.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)KD
Kwanele D
1 reviews | Active since Feb 2026
13 Feb 2026, 11:28
Conflicting Information & Outdated ID Requirements – CIMA
I am extremely frustrated by the inconsistent and confusing communication I have received from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) regarding secondary identification for my exam. From the beginning, I clearly explained that I do not have a driver’s licence. I requested accommodation for a secondary form of identification — not primary identification. Despite this, I have received conflicting guidance from different consultants. At one stage, I was told that a bank card could be accepted. Now I am being told that the signature on the back of the card is required. This is concerning for several reasons: 1. Bank cards are not used as formal identity verification documents anywhere. 2. Modern bank cards no longer require signatures on the back — this has largely been phased out due to chip-and-PIN and contactless technology. 3. Bank cards are linked to official IDs within banking systems, and I clearly stated that I am willing to provide an official bank letter confirming my identity. It is confusing why such strict emphasis is being placed on secondary identification when the primary identification requirements are being met. The purpose of secondary ID should be supplementary, not an additional barrier. What is most concerning is that different consultants appear to provide different answers, suggesting there is no internal alignment or clear policy communication. As a global professional body, CIMA should ensure its representatives are properly informed and consistent. Exam bookings are expensive. Students should not face the risk of being turned away due to unclear or outdated administrative requirements.
0
Replies (0)