ACCA response on protecting the term Accountant

ACCA response on protecting the term Accountant

Didn't find your answer?

Here is a response from ACCA on protecting the term Accountant.  Educatating the public not legilastion is the way forward. If the purchaser know what he/she is buying than this would not be an issue. My concern remains non ccab "accountants" posing as CCAB accountants. When a client sees an accountant he/she think the person in question is a ccab accountant. The "accountant" knows this and plays along. The franchise concept has really made this far worse.

Thank you for your recent question to ACCA's chief executive and president in response to the ACCA Engage online broadcast. Unfortunately, there was not enough time for Helen or Brendan to answer all the questions received during the broadcast. They have asked me to reply to your question on their behalf.

ACCA and the other CCAB bodies in the UK have for many years called for the term ‘accountant’ to be legally defined and protected.

We have had an increasing number of calls and letters in recent years from businesses and individuals concerned by the poor advice they have been given by individuals claiming to be qualified accountants, when in fact they have had little or no professional training and lack the qualifications to deal with complex financial issues.

We have had no encouragement to believe that another lobbying campaign to change the UK law on unqualified accountants would pay dividends. 

But we are always keeping the situation in the UK and elsewhere under review and continuously promote the value of the ACCA qualification and the profession generally.

Best wishes

Colin

Colin Davis
Head of International Communications
ACCA

Replies (27)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By cbp99
24th Sep 2010 17:55

You seem to have asked the same question as me...

Certainly you've received the same answer!

Thanks (0)
By Moonbeam
24th Sep 2010 17:58

Educating the public

We have all come across appalling standards of work from unqualified and supposedly highly qualified accountants.

There are lots of clients out there who won't pay more than 5p per hour and who expect the earth. In most cases I suspect they get what they paid for - which is a poor job. I can't weep too much for them.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
24th Sep 2010 19:10

My view - which no doubt will offend some

This same boring question keeps turning up and the same prejudices are aired time after time.  There are several points which many (most) accountants conveniently ignore. 

Under european legislation it would be impossible to "protect" the term accountant. The term "Chartered accountant" is protected and legally capable of protection but the merely descriptive word "accountant" is not a term which can be protected or restricted in law.In my experience (employing both) a lot of QBE's are in fact far better and for more able than qualified accountants. Incidently I pay them exactly the same too.The ability to pass a few exams in accountancy (or indeed any other profession) is no guarantee whatsoever of competence or ability, or indeed even of intelligence. It proves only one thing - the ability to retain sufficient information - to pass exams.Qualifications do not guarantee integrity or honesty - how many examples of crooked qualified accountants being jailed would you like?

I'm afraid this perenial argument is one which I find extremely annoying as the calls to "protect" the term accountant smack of elitism and snobbery.  It also smacks of a crude attempt to push some of the opposition out of business thus allowing qualified "accountants" to charge higher fees and rip off clients. 

I know that my opinion may offend some people, but then again - the truth sometimes hurts. 

And before someone asks - yes I'm qualified, and yes I think this is a disgraceful idea and the institutes would be better off forgetting such silly ideas and concentrating on actually representing the interests of their members by pushing for reform of the appalling tax office instead of wasting energy on false snobbery.  

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
24th Sep 2010 20:08

Qualified for tax?

Do 'Accountants' want the lot for themselves, or will they include the tax professionals? Should we rename Self Assessments so the public cannot prepare their own tax?

Where will the limit be? Wherever qualified accountants want it to be?

Please let us judge everyone individually. There are good and bad on both sides of the camp.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By OscarNappier
24th Sep 2010 22:31

Why confuse the situation

 

 

Poster why are you confusing non CCAB with non qualified

You ought to remember the day when the ACCA was not seen by some as properly qualified

I would say that if you are a member of any accountancy body that is CCAB, RQB, RSB or a full IFAC member you are FULLY QUALIFIED

The last time an accountancy association was told not to use the title "Certified" as it was potentially misleading the public as to the standard of its qualifications was http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2015724/court-orders-acpa-change-name

By the way I also employ qualified, part-qualified and qualified by experience

 

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
24th Sep 2010 23:23

As in the past CD this is one area in which we are at one

You are on the nail.  As far as someone pretending to be a CCAB approved accountant, this would continue to happen whether there was a law or not.  Even if the law required me to flash my certificate at a prospective client or post a certified copy on my website, I could forge it, in fact if it ever came to that I'd send it back and tell my body to stick it.

OP search this topic out from a year or two ago on here, it was at the time when silly Vince Cable started a debate going about protecting the term Accountant, it's a non-starter, we are not "special" enough.

Thanks (0)
FT
By FirstTab
25th Sep 2010 18:18

Looking from perspective of purchaser

The key party is the purchaser of the services. To them. I believe,  an accountant has passed the relevant examinations, has indemnity insurance and clients can take matters to the relevant professional body. I believe most small business see accountants as meeting this criteria.

I have mentioned before about the abuse of trust. In a specialist non specialist relationship (eg doctor patient relationship) the non specilaist places a huge amount of trust on the specialsit. This trust I believe is abused here.

Of course most QBE or Qualified by Franchiors will not do anything to make it clear that they are QBE or QBF it would not be to their advantage. Infact, I would say, they play to this perception to their full advantage.

If they make it clear that they do not fall into the percevied notion of an accountant but they are highly experienced etc and the client takes them and they are no issues here.

If QBE or QBF are so confident about their skills and they feel they are no different or in some cases better than regulated accountants why do they most of them hide the fact (to the clients) that they have not passed any exams and are not regulated? 

AAT, and other qualifications like tax I think fall in the category of accountants. They have made the effort to pass examinations, are regulated and they need to meet the criteria of their professional bodies.

In terms of checking certificates, I agree they can be duplicated and there is no full proof way of stopping this. I think a better approach may be checking the certificates and then the credentails with the relevant professional bodies. Again someone can give a name of CCAB accountant. This I think is better than no checks at all.

Any ideas how US, New Zealand, Australia  and the rest of Europe handle this. Is it free for all there as well?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Richard Willis
25th Sep 2010 21:27

Once again I find myself at one with CD

The term 'Accountant' is merely descriptive of  what an accountant does.  To try to protect use of the word would be like trying to protect the use of 'Builder'.  The only rational way to do it would be to force 'unqualified' accountants to add the letters 'QBE' after their trading name.  It would then be up to potential clients to satisfy themselves of their competency.

Keep in mind, though, that even qualifieds may have specialised in a particular are of expertise in practise which may make them equally inept, outside that field, to a QBE should they go independent.

BTW I am a QBE, with 30 years experience in manufacturing.  This is why I am so educated by the questions and answers on AWEB, many of which I know nothing about; never needed to!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Sep 2010 22:40

Qualifications & intelligence - two very different things

BTW I am a QBE, with 30 years experience in manufacturing.  This is why I am so educated by the questions and answers on AWEB, many of which I know nothing about; never needed to!

 

Posted by Richard Willis on Sat, 25/09/2010 - 21:27

 

"Qualifications" mean very little. They are just bits of paper that prove that you once, many years ago, read certain texts and managed by luck to retain sufficient to answer a few questions.  Far more important are experience, and, the abilty & willingness to realise what you dont know and go and find the answers. And the intelligence to then understand and apply what you have discovered.

Real intelligence isn't about knowing the answers - it's about knowing the questions that need answering before you can give an answer.

The question for the client is, does he want an intelligent accountant who will give him a good service and look after his interests and make sure everything is done right, or, does he want someone who thinks a certificate hung on the wall is all that matters and thinks he knows it all.

Perhaps those seeking "protection" would do better to turn their attention to the lack of qualifications and the lack of professionalism demonstrated by a certain other group of people - namely HMRC.

 

Thanks (0)
FT
By FirstTab
26th Sep 2010 12:14

Disclose you do not have bits of paper but are v intelligent

My point remains disclosing to clients -  I do not have bits of paper, have not passed exams but I have real intellegiance and experience.

Let the client be the judge who is the most appropriate person for them.

I do not think this is happening at the moment. QBEsand QBFs (in general) intentionally conceal the fact that they do not have bits of paper. They prefer to use the brand and the reputation that the term accountant  encompasses.

As an ex franchisee I have seen how people have been taught  to dodge this question. It really boiled down to lying.

I have heard this so many time about passing exams and intelligence. My views is if people without qualifications are so intelligent, why dont they just sit some exams. They would pass all first time, plus it would not take much time for them to study.

A significant part of my life has been spent on studying. I have gained so much as a result.

My income (when I was an employees increased significantly)I am far more confidentStudying for MBA has given such a wide perspective on businessI have learnt how to understand complex area on a subject and this for me takes time. 

I think western countries are lucky to have in the main good education system and standards. Of course they are areas they can be improved on. This is being taken for granted too many times.

For me exams and studying for exams is vital for career progression in a profession. Yes they are a few (Branson, some of the Dragons Den members) who have done well without any formal qualifications. I doubt if their accountants do not have any bits of paper.

As a professional in my opinion those bits of paper are very much needed. It is one way to verify a person has some understanding on the subject matter.

Sorry about spelling mistakes - just wanted to post a quick note.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
26th Sep 2010 14:59

double standards?

QBEsand QBFs (in general) intentionally conceal the fact that they do not have bits of paper. They prefer to use the brand and the reputation that the term accountant  encompasses.

That is a pretty wild claim and I would be interested to know what you base it upon? Are you just making reference to the accountants of your ex-franchise?

Would you make your clients fully aware that you do tax, but are not CTA? If not, why not?

Should the larger practices make sure their clients are told that some of the work will be completed by people who are NOT qualified accountants?

I note you are qualified but regularly ask for help and advice on AWeb. Should the people helping you identify whether they are qualified or not, in the way that you believe clients should be informed?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
26th Sep 2010 15:09

FirstTab

 do not think this is happening at the moment. QBEsand QBFs (in general) intentionally conceal the fact that they do not have bits of paper. They prefer to use the brand and the reputation that the term accountant  encompasses.

Posted by FirstTab on Sun, 26/09/2010 - 12:14

 

Actually by describing themselves as accountants they are not lying.  On behalf of many QBE's I know and employ to suggest that they "intentionally conceal the fact that they do not have bits of paper"  verges on the libellous and is an unacceptable groundless insinuation which, I suggest, is without foundation in fact.

What franchises instruct their franchisees to do would not surprise me, but that actually says more about those running the franchise than about the franchisees.

 

______________________________________________________

I have heard this so many time about passing exams and intelligence. My views is if people without qualifications are so intelligent, why dont they just sit some exams. They would pass all first time, plus it would not take much time for them to study.

Posted by FirstTab on Sun, 26/09/2010 - 12:14

 

There are many reasons why people dont bother taking exams.

One of the best accountants and tax experts in the country cannot take exams because of nerves, but is still a far better accountant that 99% of those qualified.  Others cant take then duec to financial pressures, young families to support, etc.

Not everyone is as lucky as you.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By godwinsj.hotmail.com
26th Sep 2010 15:10

ShirleyM

I could not have put it better myself

Thanks (0)
FT
By FirstTab
26th Sep 2010 15:30

Agree to disagree

My views have not changed on this aspect.  Time  for me to sign off on this topic and say I will agree to disagree.

It has been very interesting to read opposite views.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Richard Willis
28th Sep 2010 11:54

Very intelligent people are quite often no good at studying!

The highly intelligent mind is often working way ahead of what is actually happening now.  For this reason those so gifted (or plagued!) cannot, for instance, be bothered to write stuff down as their mind is faster than they can write.  They will be the students who can wite down the correct answer in a flash but cannot be bothered to write down the workings which they may not even have had to go through to arrive at the answer.

They will become bored and often, then, disruptive in school lessons which do not fully engage their abilities.  If they are interested in a topic they will be able to spew out any and various facts about it, but if it doesn't interest them they will have no time for it.

And yes, I am one of these.  I have a formally measured IQ (150) in the top 2 percentile but could never study to save my life!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
28th Sep 2010 16:41

Dead right Richard.

 

Passing exams has virtually nothing to do with intelligence.

People may wonder why I am so against this proposed elitism and denegration of those who, for whatever reason, don't have a particular piece of paper. 

I qualified many years ago after obtaining a first class honours degree, and I went on to obtain a Phd.  However, I left school to join the army with NOTHING. Not only didnt I have a single exam to my name, I was branded as "thick".  I had (and still have) something which had hardly been heard of back then - dyslexia.  

Thanks to the army my life turned round, I went on to get the qualifications I wanted, and as a long standing member of MENSA I know I'm far from "thick".   Just because people dont have a fairly meaningless piece of paper which proves only that they can pass exams, that doesnt make them any less intelligent, any less able, or any less honest. 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
28th Sep 2010 17:44

@ C_D

Some will believe your MENSA membership equally meaningless - after all, it's just another exam under time pressure.

However, I take my hat off to you because unravelling the 'odd one out' from synonyms etc or the next word in the sequence, while dyslexic, surely takes some doing.

-- Kind regards Andy

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
28th Sep 2010 18:36

andy

Some will believe your MENSA membership equally meaningless - after all, it's just another exam under time pressure.

Posted by andypartridge on Tue, 28/09/2010 - 17:44

 

It's as "meaningless" as a professional qualification, in that it merely shows that on a particular day you managed to give sufficient correct answers to pass an an examination or test - I just don't consider either to warrant any form of prejudice against those who don't happen to have them. I guarantee that out there are preople with far higher IQ's than mine who don't have a bit of paper.  

According to those who want to "protect" the term accountant perhaps we should also outlaw anyone not a member of MENSA from refering to themselves as "intelligent" or "bright" or "smart".  

 

_______________________________________________________

However, I take my hat off to you because unravelling the 'odd one out' from synonyms etc or the next word in the sequence, while dyslexic, surely takes some doing.

 

Posted by andypartridge on Tue, 28/09/2010 - 17:44

 

Perhaps if you had a better understanding of dyslexia in it's many forms you would understand that this actually does not cause a problem once the problem has been properly addressed.  There is actually some evidence to suggest that dyslexia is a disability which only affects those with higher functioning brains (ie the brightest) although, as I said, when I was at school it was something that simply wasnt known about or recognised.

 

Thanks (0)
Quack
By Constantly Confused
29th Sep 2010 08:37

:)

I thought AW had moved passed this... 

Must have a word with my doctor and tell them they wasted a decade at medical school, my mum can cure coughs much quicker than them and she even does it for free!

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
29th Sep 2010 09:24

Unqualified Doctors????

I hardly think an accountant is the equivalent of a Doctor.

However, if I were a pregnant lady, and about to give birth, I would choose an experienced midwife above a qualified Doctor who was straight out of exams OR one who qualified 30 years ago and specialised in plastic surgery ever since, or something equally irrelevant.

I think this compares well to the many small businesses and the self employed. They don't need a 'Rolls Royce' accountant. One who is experienced in Mini's will suffice.

Thanks (0)
Quack
By Constantly Confused
29th Sep 2010 09:43

/

But would you choose the person who had worked 30 years in (I can't spell the medical word, I am but a lowly young lad unqualified by either paper or experience) 'birth related medicine' over the one who had worked 29 years in the area and had taken and passed every exam going? 

That seems to be where most of these threads go, 'I'm better at my job because I haven't wasted time on exams', 'people who pass exams are just hiding the fact they are rubbish at their job'.  As someone who is just entering the field of accountancy you are (and have been for some time) making me start to regret my choice given how there seems to be a divide along the line of whether people with qualifications can do their jobs.

In my office there are people with the qualifications and people without, and do you know what, their ability levels are roughly the same at each age band.  But if someone has a question that is out of the ordinary it's the qualifieds who have the answers as the unqualifieds can do their jobs (well) and that's usually it.

How's about we knock the whole debate on the head again and embrace each other in fraternal love.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
29th Sep 2010 11:02

Constantly Confused

My apologies if I gave the wrong impression. I don't believe many people (if any) would say that it is not worthwhile getting qualifications, if you have the ability and the opportunity. Having qualifications will give you greater benefits and more opportunities.

Myself, and others, were just defending the unqualified's and pointing out that qualifications alone do not guarantee that the accountant is good, ethical, or has the required experience. I realise that the same applies to unqualified accountants, too, and they usually have to rely more upon reputation and referrals because of the lack of 'bits of paper'.

There are good and bad accountants, both qualified and unqualified. If there is any justice, the good accountants will survive and do well, and the bad accountants will fall by the wayside.

Thanks (0)
Quack
By Constantly Confused
29th Sep 2010 11:22

Wasn't aimed at you personally Shirley

I just had let myself believe this board was past this divide and was just giving out advice, but this thread seems to be falling back to old ways.

Anyway, I'm going to do what I should have done all day and just not visit this thread anymore, what  dont see can't depress me :)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
29th Sep 2010 11:35

.

In my office there are people with the qualifications and people without, and do you know what, their ability levels are roughly the same at each age band.  But if someone has a question that is out of the ordinary it's the qualifieds who have the answers as the unqualifieds can do their jobs (well) and that's usually it.

How's about we knock the whole debate on the head again and embrace each other in fraternal love.

Posted by Constantly Confused on Wed, 29/09/2010 - 09:43

 

I disagree with one part of your reply, that "it's the qualifieds who have the answers" as we have a couple of QBE's whose expertise in tax is far greater than any qualified I have ever known.

My objection to the proposal by the OP is simple - it smacks of elitism, protectionism, restraint of trade, and prejudice. I have yet to see a single argument in favour of it that stands up to even cursory scrutiny.

Thanks (0)
By The Minion
05th Oct 2010 11:48

if you looked at it from the clients point of view

Isnt the simplest thing in  a free market to have PII as compulsory as with employers insurance (certificate on display) etc.

It then gets down to the point of ability and if the ability is there then fine, if it isnt there is always the PII to fall back on.

Except that as we are at renewal point for our PII, i am sure there is something in there about not divulging the information?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chrisjoynes
09th Oct 2010 10:04

CD is spot on

CD has it spot on. Take a look in Accountancy magazine every month to see who has been found guilty of being corrupt and therefore thrown out of the ICAEW.

Being able to pass exams does not equal competence.

We employ both qualified and QBE accountants and I have to say I have more faith generally in QBE. They are trading on the ability and not hiding behind 3 or 4 letters after their name.

..............................................................................................................................................

123 Contracting

Contractor accountants

Thanks (0)
By The Minion
11th Oct 2010 12:16

I too read Accountancy from the back first cj

But i am sure that if you did a quick review of the heinous crimes that are committed, the most frequent reason for people being stuck off (permamently that is) is non payment of subs.

All the other things like not producing accounts that dont add up, taking money that doesnt belong to you, auditing companies you are connected with, borrowing money from clients etc etc etc in general result in a suspension and fine (if is is really really bad) or just a reprimand and fine.

Just goes to show what matters most!

Thanks (0)