Does anyone fancy creating an accountancy body that is actually for the benefit of the members?

Does anyone fancy creating an accountancy body...

Didn't find your answer?

I am a very fed up memeber of the ICAEW who sees this orgainsiation as a complete waste of time.

In the last year, I have:

1) Been effectivly told not to chase debts through the Court as it really is not the thing to do as a professional

2) Being told that I have been to slow to hand over documents to other accountants (14 days) and that I should give hand over my up most priority

3) Been told off accepting a verbal instruction by a former (bad) client for preventing a discovery assessment, who then renaged and blamed the whole thing on me

What actually am I paying for?

I don't do audit - or indeed any regulated work and I don't use their facilities being based in the North East, so what exactly do I get for my money?

I thought that an accountancy body was supposed to be our trade union, but instead they are just a big stick who relish beating the members whenever they have the chance.

Can anyone give me three reasons why I should not just quit?

And does anyone fancy starting something that actually helps (like the FSB does) the small business

John Norris
John Norris

Replies (24)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
27th Jun 2007 16:39

Thank you all
I would like to thank everyone who has posted a comment on this.

Although some don't quite stick to the point, I think most tend to think that all of the bodies who regulate us are rubbish and that its just a case (as I feel deep down) that "you can't live with them and you can't live without them" (kind of like my wife really!)

Best regards

john

Thanks (0)
avatar
By martinfoley07
22nd Jun 2007 16:39

Andrew, I stand corrected...
..in some literal sense. I did not realise how long a view you were prepared to take over history !!! I have edited by note accordingly.

Is your timeline right on exam entry? I always thought ACCA (or it forebears) introduced entrance by exams and other aspects of "professional body" status way before the 1960s - some 80 / 90 / 100 years ago?? Or has time moved faster than I thought?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
26th Jun 2007 13:43

Re London Comment
The ICAEW does have an enormous London bias. Whilst a hefty chunk of their membership is there (25%) and that in itself and the nature of the capital do mean that fairly a little extra should be spent on services there, I base my comment on the following:
1) Where is there reference library (the one and only) based? I know they post books out, but having tried it this is far from instant. Most clients don't want to wait that long. Believe me if you are starting a new practice the cost of decent texts is a big issue.
2) When the recent marketing campaign of the nature of what good accountants ACAs are, for the regions the only advertising was in the national press (which surely benefitted Londoners just as much). Londoners did however also have liveried taxis, and adverts on the Tube at great cost to the Institute. No rolling program for similar advertising has been proposed or enacted outside the capital or maybe on things like Intercity trains or major train stations on those routes? If the proposed merger money had been spent on this, we would all be feeling a benefit by now.
3)How many courses and informal meetings are held in London - there's a far wider range than is available in the regions, though over the last few years this has increased substantially on what it was.

If you look at the discpinary reports published in Accountancy June 07 you'll see a practitioner being fined £100 for not having PI insurance. That is substantially less than most of us pay for our premiums, so is it enough? Do you think the public think a fine equivalent to theirs if they are late with their tax return is in the same league? The usual fine is only £500 - surely at least £1k is resonable. Even in the event of illness you would expect some arrangement to be in place to ensure there is cover.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By martinfoley07
25th Jun 2007 18:52

weeeeellllllllllllllllll.....
....never thought I'd see the day I "defended" ICAEW, but it's interesting what views come out. It is not too difficult to see other aspects to the matters raised, even if we can all (justifiably) feel insufficiently supported.
(i) Rachel, how does ICAEW act on behalf of (say) 25% membership in London and not (say) 75% membership outside London ? That's a new one.
(ii) re weight of legislation on small practitioners and business, of course it is not as effective in getting Govt to do its members bidding as its members would like it to be - but which organisation is (not FSB, that's for sure, albeit it's excellent for other services to members.)
(iii) Penalties for lack of PI is interesting area. But would you like practitioners to be fined astronomical amounts ? Or de-frocked? What penalty would you want?
(iv) ICAEW line on debts is I suspect being somewhat misrepresented (unwittingly, I'm sure) through a mist of anger, even if the anger is heartfelt. Their view seems to be that when it comes to parting company with (ex) clients, especially in respect of liens on fees etc, and especially when letters of engagement and formalities are less than apple pie order, then discretion can often be the better part of valour . The view seems to arise not because they think that "right" or "proper" or "good", but based on empirical past (bad) experiences from their own membership. So they are passing on previous experience. You do not have to act on it. I have never heard ICAEW claim it "unprofessional" to sue for fees in other circumstances - be interested to hear if they have. By same token, of course, they will not hear complaints against members on fees.
(v) whilst of course you should focus on existing client service, getting shot of ex-clients super fast is the best advice, rather than hang around. Can't comment on whether 14 days is hanging around or being super-fast ; as always, it could be either depending on the detailed circumctances.
(vi) accepting verbal instructions CAN be problemmatic, as seems the case here, so it is hardly an astonishing thing for them to say ; might feel totally unsupportive thing to say, but only pointing out the problem. Especially if it's a bad client !!! Don't quite understand which angle the "prevent discovery assessment" comment comes from so can't comment.

(p.s. does the outside London comment come from physical location of Moorgate Place offices? In which case, couple of comments : (i) Put it anywhere else, and the percentage "not served" by it just increases? (ii) I've lived in London for over 20 of the last 30 years, and never once set foot inside the place !!)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
25th Jun 2007 14:05

Trade Union or discplinary body?
At the moment the ICAEW seems to be not particularly good at either. If you look at the discplinary reports in Accountancy magazine you begin to wonder if they really think they are regulating their members well. I thought practising without PI insurance was a big thing - the penalties seem to suggest otherwise.

As for the "trade union" side, their seems to be little representation of the 75% of the membership outside London in their policies, nor much for sole practitioners bending under the weight of regulatory things they have to do before they can get on with some work which they can charge for. (the urgency of handover rather than looking after your own clients probably an example of this) The tax faculty books might be good and fairly good value for what you get - but the rest of the fee goes to what? Why shouldn't we chase bad debts through the legal system? Wouldn't we recommed that our client's do?

Re the verbal instruction thing - always acknowledge such requests in writing to the client as well as making a telephone call note. They then have to lie all the much faster if there is any chance of them being believed.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
25th Jun 2007 13:04

Tempus Fugis
Well spotted, Martin. I'd missed the evening-class exams:

1918
Membership is formalised, becoming conditional on passing final examinations and completing five years' relevant experience

Prior to which you just turned up with your boots and got a game. I think 1963 heralded full-time study.

I'm tickled pink at the ACCA's early attempts to build an international student base:

1940
With the help of the Red Cross, prisoners of war sit ACCA exams.

I'm surprised the Red Cross allowed such beastly treatment. No wonder Japanese soldiers fought to the death!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By martinfoley07
21st Jun 2007 17:04

well, Andrew...
The ACCA ,as is and as was, has the various functions and constitution of a professional body (quintessentially, examining members for entry requirements and thereafter regulating members in a wider interest than just that of the members alone). As do a number of bodies.
We can all debate the pros and cons of these "professional body" aspects, their validity and use.
It is a perfectly valid point of view for someone to believe they are not of interest or use, whether to themselves as accountants, or to the "public" or clients at large.
But it is not valid to "pass off" as such a body when you are not. That is the problem with ICPA.

If ICPA transforms itself into a professional body in reality instead of passing itself off as one, good luck to it.
If it declares itself transparently for what it is, and chooses not to to be a professional body anyway, good luck to it.
In the meantime, it is self-certified misrepresentation.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Jun 2007 13:13

Parallels
"....That is the problem with ICPA. And it has NO parallel with ACCA"

Martin, I think there are definite parallels: you made the point about ICPA being "self-certified"; and if you look through the ACCA's history at http://www.accaglobal.com/publicinterest/about/history/1904 those parallels are in the milestones:

1904
30 November - eight accountants found the London Association of Accountants, the forerunner of ACCA

1907
The term 'certified accountant' is introduced.

1908
The first students' association is established.

1963
Students are given the option to prepare for final exams through full-time study at educational institutions.

1984
A new name is announced, the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants.

So in 1907, the ACCA were at the same development stage as the ICPA are excactly 100 years later: "self-certified" accountants (what a wonderful phrase you have coined). The blueprint: form an association; self-certify; introduce a students association and exams; introduce full-time couses; achieve credibility; apply for a Royal Charter.

So I guess the ICPA need to introduce some sort of competence test for new entrants sometime soon, if this latter day new-kid-on-the-block is to follow the ACCA's development path.

"All this has happened before. And all this will happen again." (J M Barrie, 1904)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Chris Smail
21st Jun 2007 17:12

You could form a University
and award yourself a doctorate ....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Jun 2007 22:23

Three reasons?
A fab tax faculty with a great tax magazine and an annual tax planning book. That's three, but pricey given the size of the subs!


Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Jun 2007 09:48

Beamer and Light Flannel?
"... we will see the perception of accountants by the public change so that accountants are seen in the same light as estate agents... "

Nonsense! We'll never raise public perception of accountants that high, Peter.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Richardrussell
18th Jun 2007 20:17

The thing is...
... the minute you do jack your membership in - bang - the Government actually do something useful and protect the term accountant. Sod's law.


For the record, I'm an FCMA member in practice, general practice, have not got where you guys are yet, but can really imagine it in a few years time. Actually, I've just forked out £200 subs plus £62 for being a member in practice, so it may be sooner than that!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
18th Jun 2007 21:03

Cut The Red Tape...
... by applying for full exemption (by virtue of your chartered qual) membership of one of the lesser accountants' bodies such as AIA or IFA. Enjoy the more relaxed regime of their practising certificates, whilst retaining your right to the term "accountant".

For those not blessed with a chartered qual, there's a body named CICPA - although I'm not sure whether they'll hang on to the term accountant or not when the great day arrives as they seem geared towards QBEs. Their cpd's impressive - even boasts the great Mrs B. on one of their training CDs.

Or do something else. I've always fancied a market stall myself... "no income tax, no VAT..."

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
19th Jun 2007 08:41

You're Far From Alone!
Apparently in the first three months of 2006 some 800 ICAEW members dropped their membership of the Institute and as figures for the remaining 9 months were not forthcoming one can only assume that the situation got even worse later in the year!

This disillusionment is most widely felt by those accountants who deal with smaller client who have no need for an audit. Why should they pay hefty subscriptions every year to see this money squandered on pointless exercises such as creating new logos, etc.?

The way things are going we are likely to have a two tier profession in the next few years. Qualified CCAB accountants in the bigger firms (both public practice and industry) and unqualified accountants catering for all the accounting/tax requirements of Joe Bloggs on the high street.

As the majority of the general public deal with these smaller practitioners to service their accounting requirements we will see the perception of accountants by the public change so that accountants are seen in the same light as estate agents.

Is this a step forward?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MarionMorrison
19th Jun 2007 09:51

Light dawning?
I almost feel like us cowboys have the moral high ground here. It all emphasises that the thing that is bought by ICAEW and ACCA are just badges and gold stickers that the majority of clients don't care about. I can understand the virtues of the institutions acting as an examining body, that provide common standards in areas that might (though often aren't) relevant to running a practice. But beyond that? An ineffective and random policing system that has requirements for CPD stuff that are mainly pointless jollies or fun days out (if you aren't paying for them).

Why shouldn't the professional bodies just have an examing board status and leave others to regulate auditing and other activity that needs it? After all, I have a degree in History, so can stick a BA on my name and then I go off to do a job with very little in common to the degree. No-one says I have to keep doing courses on the Stuart Monarchy to continue to use them.

The reason is that my professional abilities are defined by what I do, not a dry academic qualification from a few years ago. That's what the clients care about - whether you're good at what you do, not how whether you've done 13 or 15 hours CPD.


P.S. James the First wasn't too bad (well, he had experience), but the rest of the Stuart Monarchy were knaves or fools. Discuss.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Neville Ford
19th Jun 2007 09:59

I'm not so sure.
I have long criticised the institutes, they are not trade associations as they do little to protect and enhance their members' interests. They are not regulatory bodies as they achieve little in regulating either quality or protecting the consumer. They cannot control the larger members who are responsible for most of the big audit scandals and the greatest weigh of their "regulation" falls on their smallest members.

In my view, for most general practice, it matters little which CCAB body you belong to, or whether you belong to a CCAB body at all, unless if you wish to do audit. I have seen both very poor and very good work produced by unqualified and qualified alike - quality is a matter of professional pride not qualification.

As far as the general public are concerned the institutes are irrelevant. In my own highly unscientific poll most members of the general public cannot name one accountancy institute and remember 90% of all businesses in the UK employ less than 10 people.

I considered resigning my membership a few of years ago, however the DTI published a "Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession: Legislative Proposals" in March 2003. This mainly concentrated on audit, but gave a window on Government thinking. The results of the consulation concluded that they would not impose statutory regulation for the time being. However the implication was that if there was another scandal they would.

As we have had a period without a serious scandal it has gone quiet. However it will only take a similar event for it to raise its head. If, or when, this happens I suspect that non-audit business would also get caught in the cross-fire. When statutory regulation comes they would have to approve certain accountants "on block" to avoid serious disruption - and I would suggest that perhaps it would be any accountant who is a member of a CCAB body.

Whilst it is a personal decision, for now I will continue to cough up my fees, submit the ocassional CPD record, etc and comply with their regulation to the minimum extent. It is about managing risk - the shorter the period to retirement the greater the risk you can take on this issue. Whilst the bloody minded part of me screams tell them to sod off, the more prudent part says I have sufficient years to go to make it a matter of strategic necessity to keep options open. As time draws on the pendulum may swing the other way.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
19th Jun 2007 10:29

Good decision
I had the opportunity to "buy back" my ACCA practising cert last year but it was going to cost me 10 years of back subs to find out for sure that they would keep their side of the deal. I weighed it up and decided to stick with the AAT member in practice scheme. In light of this debate, I'm probably glad I didn't shell out the cash!

My only concern is that I think working as a sole-practitioner is actually pretty tough and most of the time I need to be on my game to make sure that all the implications are considered when giving advice. The ACCA exams were mostly irrelevant to day to day work BUT they sorted out those who might be able to juggle lots of complex rules from those who could not. Accountancy in a complex tax regime is not comparable to estate agency and in practise you can still do a lot wrong with a little knowledge.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Jun 2007 13:14

All This Has Happened Before
Martin's right: It does indeed say "Certified Practicing Accountants" on the ICPA's homepage.
Shouldn't that be "Practising"?

The homepage informs us: "43,000 of the practices in this Country out of a total of 65,000 (DTI figures) are non CCAB members."
So the ICPA might easily become the largest accountancy body in the country?

If these guys are "Certified Practising Accountants" under their own self-certification, are they not in the same position as were "Certified Accountants" (prior to their achieving chartered status)? Some years ago, many Chartered Accountants had exactly the same contemptuous attitude towards Certified Accountants; and later towards Chartered Certified Accountants' passing-off as Chartered Accountants.

Whose to say history will not repeat itself? The ICPA could be up there with everyone else in 10 years' time.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By abelljms
19th Jun 2007 12:06

moaning
it's easy to complain, and we know icaew doesn't really care a 4x about small boys,
but they have a monopoly, so do something more constructive like standing for Council and then you can moan in comfort....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
19th Jun 2007 13:00

Professional Memberships
As a Student MAAT, I've not had much cause for complaint yet, though from what I've seen of ACA and ACCA members, I can see why folk are irritated.

Do you write to your body to complain? I know I sure as hell would.

If as many people as it seems are disgruntled, surely you'd have some kind of forum to make your views known?

As a side note, as a BA (Hons) (which I don't use) and no MAAT after my name yet, few of my clients seem to care about my qualifications. I offer the service they want at a mutually agreeable price and they are happy with that. Maybe 1 in 5 ask if I am qualified and I tell them not yet, but I passed all my exams and will be soon. They don't ask what in, and as long as they know I've had some training they are happy.

I certainly wouldn't dream of going on to the ACCA or ICAEW.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By shaunmcguinness
19th Jun 2007 15:04

ICPA
I recently joined the ICPA http://www.icpa.org.uk/
its a really great deal with PI and CPD thrown in to the package too.
yake a look and see what you think

Thanks (0)
avatar
By martinfoley07
20th Jun 2007 14:22

I am sorry to say....
...that Nathan has been very accurate and honest about ICPA. Since accuracy and honesty are "good" (especially for accountants), why be sorry?

Well, to the extent that any organisation or association of like minded folk club together to provide mutual help and support and services for each other, that is great. And indeed it seems the original poster wants just that. And, judging from comments made, it seems ICPA is delivering the goods. So no problem, surely?

Well, ...........

ICPA goes beyond that to "passing off" in the most overt manner.

As Nathen says, it enables you to put letters after your name. The clear (and true) implication being the public will take these to mean something. Unfortunately they are mislead into believing ICPA to be a professional body with mechanisms for testing members and regulating them.

The name says "CERTIFIED practicing accountants" (my caps). Self-certified, actually, which is a nice touch. But just a tad mis-leading.

CPA just so happens to be the same initials and a very similar name to "Certified Public Accountants". What a complete and utter coincidence.

There are many issues about the "professions" (whether medical, legal, accounting, property etc etc), which are open to debate.

I'm afraid that "passing off" is not very debatable.

Thanks (0)
Tony Margaritelli, ICPA Chairman
By Tony Margaritelli
19th Jun 2007 17:09

Check out the ICPA
As others have posted do checkout the ICPA at www.icpa.org.uk for an organisation for accountants in practice run by accountants in practice.

Benefits include PI Insurance, unlimited Tax helpline, free CPE, Money Laundering Guidlines, Magazine, Fee Protection and much much more.

This year as we did last year we will also give every member at publication date a free copy of Tolleys Tax Guide.

There is more so do see the website.

Tony Margaritelli - Chair ICPA

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nathanhamill
20th Jun 2007 09:57

ICPA
I am a member of ICPA. It has good benefits (see below) and is reasonably priced. It also allows you "letters" on your letterhead and that is what clients want to see (if they, in fact, really care - all they want is a good service!)

Thanks (0)