A question for all you bookkeepers

Pennywise

heretolearn wrote: »

That is interesting Pennywise, ACCA compliance visits are sent to try us, agreed! We always end up with a list of stuff as long as your arm that are just minor quibbles over who opens the post and stuff like that!

Absolutely agree, that's why I'm so annoyed at the moment. Some of the things they've picked up on are ridiculous, and at the same time, they've not so much as asked about the real work we do that the clients pay for - as far as ACCA compliance reviewer was concerned, I could happily tell the clients a load of bad advice and not bother balancing the balance sheets - it was all over her head.

Similar to your example, my reviewer wanted some "procedures" documents for handling post, complaints, MLR, etc., and insisted on checklists and other documents showing the responsible staff etc. But I'm literally a one man band- there's no-one else to do any work besides me, so all the documents would show me as the responsible person, and would be written by me, only to be read by me and actioned by me - what planet are they on? She was adament I needed a document signed by all staff (me) advising them (me), that the MLR reporting officer was (me), so that all staff (me) knew who to tell (me) in any case of suspected MLR. You really couldn't make it up.

It certainly put me off growing the practice and employing people and having to deal with all this garbage.

I thought things were bad many years ago when I worked for a chartered practice. At least the reviewer looked at some audit files that time, but came up with nothing but the likes of sheets that weren't properly cross referenced etc. There was one audit file they picked that was a real corker - page after page of conflicting audit "evidence" re going concern and stock values - it caused a lot of arguments in the office during the audit because the audit partner (friendly with client) just ignored the blatent truth that the accounts were materially wrong and signed the clean audit report anyway. The ICAEW reviewer never even picked up the problem - talk about an elephant in the room - clearly only looking for trivia such as cross-referencing etc.

If this is the standard of regulators and reviewers throughout the UK, then it's not a surprise that far too many times, there are deaths, injuries, corporate failures, frauds, etc., under the noses of the regulators, as they're just not looking at what really matters - all they care about is box ticking, procedures, etc, not on what's actually happening.

I've decided to lodge an official complaint about the pedantic nature of this reviewer as a first stage and see what response I get, but I suspect I'll be an ex-ACCA member by the end of the year as I'm not hopeful.

accountingbod

Thanks for all the responses and for your throughts Pennywise.
In my opinion it's such a shame that to have gone through all the study and work to acheive a professional qualification, some people are dis-associating themselves with associations. It should be something that you hold with pride that you have achieved a level of qualification and can associate yourself with an accounting body.

I can say that as a current student, the amount of hoops we now have to jump through to prove ethical knowledge and decision making has inceased about 3 fold since i started three years ago but none of it is tied to the work you in terms of identifying risks or ethical problems in your own workplace. Why we would then be tested on opening post is a mystery when there are far greater things that should be looked at such as client files etc...

I for one as an enthusiastic student am looking forward to qualifying and running a practice in a few years time and i am starting to think more and more that a practicing certificate is not all it is cracked up to be. That is a real shame because i think an accounting body should exist to aid its members and of course be vigilent about practice. That being said, checking post procedures and the like really is a bit patronising given the level you guys are working on.

All in all, a bit of a waste of money.

On another note, i have now found an accountant. He has agreed to do end of year accounts for my clients through me. As a firm they do not engage in bookkeeping but have some requests for it through the year so we have agreed on a mutual relationship where i can pass clients to him and then i will be passed clients when they need work doing.

So all in all, how many of you would say that a practicing certificate is worth the paper it is writen on?

Pennywise

accountingbod wrote: »

So all in all, how many of you would say that a practicing certificate is worth the paper it is writen on?

The trouble is that you have to give up your membership of the accountancy body (ACA or ACCA) if you want to practice at all, so it's not just a matter of the PC, it's a matter of losing the ability to say you're an ACA/ACCA, or sign off references etc where an ACA/ACCA is a required signatory. There's a lot to be said for joining the likes of the AAT which should be no problem for an ACA/ACCA member who should be exempt from the AAT exams, as the banks etc usually accept an AAT signing off references.

I think the days are long gone where the ACA was regarded as "THE" standard for accountancy practices. There are so many firms that have no qualifications at all, and the ACA/ACCA seem to have completely lost touch with their small practitioners. I just don't think people have the same respect for the professions anymore. I started 30 years ago when there were very few unqualified accountancy practices (mainly due to limited companies having to have an audit which meant ACA or ACCA! so the market for unqualifieds was far smaller). I'm certainly not encouraging my 10 year old son to follow me into the profession, in fact, I'm actively discouraging him and hope that he'll find a more respected and better paid profession!

accountingbod

Well it's a shame to hear you say that Pennywise especially as i'm getting close to entering the profession!

I do understand what you are saying though and i am an optimistic person (which probably makes me a fool as well) but do believe that there is space to have an industry that is respected and actually stands by honesty and integrity etc... but anyway, that's going off the subject.

Can you clarify what you meant by saying that you would have to give up membership if you want to practice at all?
I presume you meant this with regard to setting up without a PC?

I'll look at the AAT as well as i was not aware of this.

Do you fancy joining my new accountancy profession? It's called the NBPAL (The non-beaureucratic proper accountants league)!

Pennywise

accountingbod wrote: »

Do you fancy joining my new accountancy profession? It's called the NBPAL (The non-beaureucratic proper accountants league)!

Already been done. Both the AAT and ICPA seem to have a good reputation and neither have the same kind of pedantic box-ticking culture as the ACA/ACCA. I think the thing is that ACA/ACCA are looking at things from the grossly over-regulated arena of statutory audits and there's clearly a "trickle down" effect into non statutory audit areas. I can fully understand why things like postal opening procedures may be relevant for larger firms handling client monies, or undertaking major audits or other public interest work, but it's completely OTT and irrelevant for the average firm doing Joe Bloggs the plumber's accounts! Sadly the professional bodies don't seem to be able to see the difference.

accountingbod wrote: »

Can you clarify what you meant by saying that you would have to give up membership if you want to practice at all?
I presume you meant this with regard to setting up without a PC?

Yes, that's it. If you're a member of ACA/ACCA you can only practice if you have a PC. So without a PC you have to resign membership if you want to practice.

I'm seeing many websites of accountancy practices where the "about us" section says that Joe Smith qualified as a chartered/certified accountant in 1999 or whatever, but when checking, they are no longer members and their websites just say "accountants and business advisers" - i.e. no mention of the chartered on their letterheads etc. So they're saying something which is true, i.e. that they qualified as chartered, but they're not saying that they're not members anymore -kind of giving some assurance that they know what they're doing, but also giving a misleading impression that they're still members. Not good, but what else can you do when the bodies have such strict and arguably unrealistic rules - they havn't changed whilst the way of working is nothing like it was a couple of decades or so.

accountingbod

Hello everyone

Well, following on from my previous emails, I am happy to say that i have now passed all of my ACCA exams!
I am just finishing up my paperwork and will then be eligable for membership.
I have also set-up and been running my bookkeeping service for a few months now and have four clients and things seem to be going well.
Time will tell if i decide to go down the full accountancy practice route. At the moment, my mortgage says no, but if my client base continues to grow then one day it may become a reality.
Thanks for all your help and comments so far.

Just very happy that i never have to take another ACCA exam!