Useless "accountants"!

Dean

Just taken on a new client and their previous accountant won't respond to my clearance letter. I telephoned and he said "well if I've got your letter I'll respond" and promptly put the phone down on me! You either have my letter or you don't! (after 3 weeks!)

I've progressed with the engagement as the client has all the information I need. The work the previous accountant did was, shall we say, lacking!

I've been through the past correspondence with him and the client and his letterheads state "professional excellence" with his name in "lights" being a Bsc and whatever "Ecom" is?! Oh and to top it off he is portraying he is an auditor!!!

This sort of thing really gets my goat! Is there anyway to report this sort of thing - in the public interest? With all the red-tape we have to adhere to and this can't be stopped! I don't know why I bother to pay all of my subscriptions and try to be a 'good ol' sole'!

Rant over.

Regards

Dean

jamesm96

I first read this and though 'well, if he's purporting to be an auditor then he needs to be reported.' But having thought about it for five minutes... who would you report to?

I mean, if somebody pretends to be a solicitor when they're not qualified, you report them to the regulatory body (the SRA). But an auditor could be a member of any of the CCAB bodies... do you report to all of them, or do you report to the CCAB, or what?

Moominyak

You could try here... http://www.auditregister.org.uk/Forms/Default.aspx

Search by individual... and then if he's not listed... report him to the police.... as it's a crime, isn't it?

cheapaccounting

Does he have a web site? Is his qualification on there?

We get this so often. Would you believe one of our AAT was told by an ACCA that they were not a proper accountant.

The ACCA went on this unnecessary attack as she had not done a bank rec as part of the year end accounts - who is not the proper accountant there I ask!

Dean

cheapaccounting wrote: »

Does he have a web site? Is his qualification on there?

Nope! Just an email address and a mobile number!

Grrrr

Dean

Moominyak

So look up his name on the audit register website as I suggested....

cheapaccounting

Whilst really annoying - move on

Take comfort in the fact that you have a new client. You may need to reconstruct opening balances.

uknitty

being a Bsc and whatever "Ecom" is?

I'd read the two things as part of one qualification - they have a BSc in E commerce ? Or possibly Economics (with a typo )

Dean

cheapaccounting wrote: »

Whilst really annoying - move on

Totally. However we all do this too much. The fact that this still goes on de-values our profession entirely.

Regards

Dean

Dean

uknitty wrote: »

I'd read the two things as part of one qualification - they have a BSc in E commerce ? Or possibly Economics (with a typo )

I could believe this too!

Regards

Dean

cheapaccounting

Dean wrote: »

The fact that this still goes on de-values our profession entirely.

Regards

Dean

yes it does

Moominyak

Dean wrote: »

Totally. However we all do this too much. The fact that this still goes on de-values our profession entirely.

Regards

Dean

So... have you looked him up by name yet (see post #3)? I'm interested as to whether he's on there (it should tell you the body he belongs to as well - if he's listed).

Dean

Moominyak wrote: »

So... have you looked him up by name yet (see post #3)? I'm interested as to whether he's on there (it should tell you the body he belongs to as well - if he's listed).

If he were an auditor he would have put an RSB qualification after his name. Especially as he has bothered to put other qualifications.

Regards

Dean

Moominyak

So... you posted to a) have a rant, and b) get advice on to whom / where to report him for falsely portraying himself as an auditor, but now you can't spend 30 seconds typing his name into a search facility?

I thought you were concerned about him getting away with this. And don't we have an ethical (and probably a professional) duty to report such things?

Or are you worried that he will be on the list after all?

cheapaccounting

I think we are all entitled to have a wee rant every now and again :-) I know I some times need one

Moominyak

You are so right Sorry, I didn't mean to devalue Dean's right to rant. Just something about horses...water...drinking, that's all And I don't like being kept in suspense!

If I knew the fella's name I'd look him up myself :laugh:

cheapaccounting

I've met many a thirsty horse in my time. :-) lol

Dean

cheapaccounting wrote: »

I've met many a thirsty horse in my time. :-) lol

Don't feed the troll.

Regards

Dean

Bluewednesday

I don't think there is any need to look as any registered auditor discloses their qualification first so I think it's safe to say that if they haven't disclosed a qualification they are not a registered auditor.

I wonder if they have just said auditor and not registered auditor so they are not actually getting anything wrong?

Moominyak

Dean wrote: »

Don't feed the troll.

Regards

Dean

Wow. I appear to have inadvertently offended you (Dean) by offering what I thought / hoped would be useful.

Please accept my apologies as that obviously wasn't how my input was interpreted. I certainly don't / didn't mean to fall out with or aggravate anybody.

stevo5678

The debate of whether and AAT is an accountant won't go away. I agree that although accountant is not in the name one can still perform the role of an 'accountant'. The issue is that when you qualify with AAT you are not a ready made 'qualified accountant' but gain this role through experience where as ACA and ACCA you are an accountant from the get go (hence it being in the title).

There's no denying that the hoops yOu need to jump through and the demands of qualifying through a CCAB body is of a different ilk from that of doing the AAT ( I know this as I have done both and there is honestly no comparison). Again that's not to say an AAT MIP or member employed within the role of an accountant is not by all means of the word an accountant. With AAT it's all about the experience that a member obtains.

The CCAB accountants (and especially the ACA's) inherently look 'down' on AAT's as they question why they didn't achieve the ultimate professional accolade within their chosen arena.

Truth is they don't understand the value that the AAT CAN bring. What I'm getting at is that I don't think any AAT can call themselves an accountant fresh out of what in hindsight are relatively easy exams. It's all about the experience in my opinion.

cheapaccounting

stevo5678 wrote: »

The CCAB accountants (and especially the ACA's) inherently look 'down' on AAT's as they question why they didn't achieve the ultimate professional accolade within their chosen arena.

.

As an ACA I object to that statement. That may be true of some but please do not tar us all with the same brush.

I fully understand the value of AAT - that is why the majority of our franchisees are AAT.

stevo5678

cheapaccounting wrote: »

As an ACA I object to that statement. That may be true of some but please do not tar us all with the same brush.

I fully understand the value of AAT - that is why the majority of our franchisees are AAT.

I fully understand your objections to this statement. But it doesn't mean it's not true in the most part. There is no way anyone could account for every single persons view but there are a lot of older ACA's maybe more so men (again I am generalising but am sure there are exceptions) that have the old school golf club mentality and this includes toward ACCA's aswell (probably in particular as it's more of a direct competition).

I am glad you do not share this view and there will certainly be many who are like you, but just as many if not more that have a slightly different opinion.

Again I go back to experience, any accountant is only as good as the experience he/she has acquired but this is especially the case for AAT due to the gap in difficulty and scope compared to the CCAB qualifications.

AAT for me is a fantastic 'building block' to move your career forward. If you want to progress to another qualification because you may be rewarded with better employment condition/opportunities you can do that. If you want gain some professional backing and have some letters to your name, the AAT ticks that box. Also as many on this forum are aware, if you are business minded, ambitious, hard working then you can embark on the journey to running your own practice.

I would recommend AAT to anybody.

cheapaccounting

stevo5678 wrote: »

but there are a lot of older ACA's maybe more so men (again I am generalising but am sure there are exceptions) that have the old school golf club mentality and this includes toward ACCA's aswell (probably in particular as it's more of a direct competition).



I would recommend AAT to anybody.

I am old


I would recommend AAT to anybody - me too

stevo5678

Hahah, I mean old school mentality. You certainly do not come into this bracket

Rinske

There seem to be a lot of generalisations going where some people seem to think ALL ACCA/ ACA etc people think AAT is not enough, but we all know that that is not true. At the same time there is this urge to post on here how someone with a chartered qual is useless or made a mistake, which to me shows the same generalisation and attempts to try to get a confirmation of a persons value, compared to someone with a "higher" qualification.

Not sure why these threads keep popping up, but sometimes I get the feeling that there is this insecurity of their own knowledge/ worth from the starter of the thread, and it seems to be all about getting the confirmation that AAT is enough or that they are better or equal to someone with a higher qualification. To some extend I can understand this if you work with colleagues/ people talking down on you, but why do we have discussions on the AAT forums, discussing that non-AAT accountants can be useless?

I really think Blue said it all in the other thread!

Bluewednesday wrote: »

it's not the qualification but the person!

Monsoon

Rinske wrote: »

There seem to be a lot of generalisations going where some people seem to think ALL ACCA/ ACA etc people think AAT is not enough, but we all know that that is not true. At the same time there is this urge to post on here how someone with a chartered qual is useless or made a mistake, which to me shows the same generalisation and attempts to try to get a confirmation of a persons value, compared to someone with a "higher" qualification.

Not sure why these threads keep popping up, but sometimes I get the feeling that there is this insecurity of their own knowledge/ worth from the starter of the thread, and it seems to be all about getting the confirmation that AAT is enough or that they are better or equal to someone with a higher qualification. To some extend I can understand this if you work with colleagues/ people talking down on you, but why do we have discussions on the AAT forums, discussing that non-AAT accountants can be useless?

I really think Blue said it all in the other thread!

Well said.

Dean

I wondered where this would go following Steve's reply.

If you read my opening post I'm not comparing accountants! I'm poking a stick at "unqualifieds". A fairly accepted generalisation that they CAN discredited the profession and there are seemingly NO ramifications for said individuals. Whereas we all have professional bodies where compliants can be made and the "book" thrown at us.

Rinske, I'm not sure if your "knowledge/worth from the starter of the thread" is directly aimed my way but I can assure you I have few insecurities as far as PI claims are concerned though I'd like to be paid more...

Regards

Dean

stevo5678

I agree the thread has gone off track. It is about the person in the main, I personally was providing balance as to why some ACCA's etc may have this view which was from the original post.

I think there are alot of accountants with various different quals on these forums - AAT (obviously), ACCA, ACA, AT, CIMA etc. I don't think that anyone posts on here to score points regarding which qual they hold but more as a compliment of the standard on discussion and content.

I personally find this forum a huge insight and think that the balance is productive. IE if it was all pro AAT this and that then surely that would be a narrow view of the profession.

Steve

Rinske

Dean wrote: »

I wondered where this would go following Steve's reply.

If you read my opening post I'm not comparing accountants! I'm poking a stick at "unqualifieds". A fairly accepted generalisation that they CAN discredited the profession and there are seemingly NO ramifications for said individuals. Whereas we all have professional bodies where compliants can be made and the "book" thrown at us.

Rinske, I'm not sure if your "knowledge/worth from the starter of the thread" is directly aimed my way but I can assure you I have few insecurities as far as PI claims are concerned though I'd like to be paid more...

Regards

Dean

It wasn't personal to you and more following on to how the thread has developed.

However to just say that unqualifieds CAN discredit our profession is something I disagree with too. There are good ones and bad ones, but you will find that in all professions (and there is not a lot you can do about it).

Most people will not judge a profession solely on one or two individuals they have dealt with. You wouldn't say all plumbers are bad, just when you found one that didn't do their job properly, instead you would find another one the next time. The problem with accountancy is that people quite often won't be able to say which one is better or worse, as the mistakes may be less apparent.

Dean

Rinske wrote: »

It wasn't personal to you and more following on to how the thread has developed.

Glad you thought Steve was a trouble maker too

However to just say that unqualifieds CAN discredit our profession is something I disagree with too. There are good ones and bad ones, but you will find that in all professions (and there is not a lot you can do about it).

Aren't you actually agreeing with me? My emphasis on the word CAN means not all unqualifieds are bad but when they are they seem to extremely poor.

Most people will not judge a profession solely on one or two individuals they have dealt with. You wouldn't say all plumbers are bad, just when you found one that didn't do their job properly, instead you would find another one the next time. The problem with accountancy is that people quite often won't be able to say which one is better or worse, as the mistakes may be less apparent.

If I came across a bad experience I (like everyone) would move on and find someone else that I thought was good but I would now be on guard with everything that happens. When I call on someone else for their expertise I shouldn't then have to be also thinking for them. The one or two is enough to cast a grey cloud over our profession. The bit I take issue with is the "not a lot you can do about it", this is something we do agree on. This can't possible be right for any of us good guys can it?

Let me pose this question; when you go to your doctor or see a solicitor how many of them that are practicing are unqualified?

Now good and bad qualified's, well that's another issue but least there is a standard complaints proceduces here and if onerous enough people can be reprimanded or expelled. Much like the above medical and legal profession.

Anyhow, this sort of thing has gone on since I started in the profession. It will probably continue long after I've gone! This thread was to 'rant' to say how much it truly p!sses me off!

Regards

Dean