Is this accountant taking the you-know-what?

Is this accountant taking the you-know-what?

Didn't find your answer?

I have posted on this topic before but thought I would update everyone.

I have a client that I do everything for (accounts/book-keeping/VAT/payroll/CT600 etc) but he likes to have them 'reviewed' by a big firm - just to get another set of eyes on them.

Their review for this year has been completed - they have picked up on the fact that there is a large 'trade creditors' balance on the accounts - which they have told my client would be 'illegal just to write this balance off' and have put the wind up him completely, together with an SMP adjustment that wasn't made in the previous year's accounts.

Apart from that they have advised him to 'buy a property' and, well, that's about it - and the price for their review?  £1,700 + VAT (my fee for the preparation of the accounts was £1,000).

I wondered what everyone's opinion on this matter is?

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By ShirleyM
23rd Dec 2011 18:08

Nope ...

The other accountant isn't holding a gun to your clients head, but they probably feel obliged to provide some corrections, or advice, to justify their fee. I would ask for a very large fee to review another accountants work, as I am sure you would, too. 

The problem is with your client. If the review bothers you then get shut of the client.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tosie
23rd Dec 2011 19:13

no easy way to review

To review accounts prepared by a third party can only be done by almost redoing everything.

As the book-keeper you already have the info and know that it is accurate. A new person has to start again.

I think it is time to tell the client to make up their mind whether or not they trust you as they are

paying twice.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jpcentral
24th Dec 2011 09:13

Avoid

Having been through this before on two occasions which caused us an inordinate amount of grief, we now take the view that we will not get involved in this type of situation. It does mean that we have turned down two (apparently) profitable pieces of work in the past year - but our experience is that, sooner or later, there will be problems and disagreements.

Tell the client to either trust you or find someone else.

 

John Perry

www.centralbusiness.co.uk

Thanks (0)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
24th Dec 2011 10:17

I actually welcome it

I have a number of clients which are subject to audit. And, despite my avoidance of any bookkeeping and compliance work, I get my arm twisted to draft the statutory accounts. There are a number of complexities in their businesses and I am glad of being able to get a second opinion/bounce ideas around. And somebody else can have the pleasure of wading through checking disclosure compliance, etc. and make sure wordings are up to date.

Thanks (0)
Replying to WhichTyler:
avatar
By jaybee661
24th Dec 2011 11:49

@paulwakefield1

paulwakefield1 wrote:

I have a number of clients which are subject to audit. And, despite my avoidance of any bookkeeping and compliance work, I get my arm twisted to draft the statutory accounts. There are a number of complexities in their businesses and I am glad of being able to get a second opinion/bounce ideas around. And somebody else can have the pleasure of wading through checking disclosure compliance, etc. and make sure wordings are up to date.

... I guess I'm not against the idea in principle, but £1,700 for reviewing a £1,000 set of accounts - and all they did was advise my client of two possible problem areas on the balance sheet (albeit fairly minor) and advising him to buy a property!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Submitted
24th Dec 2011 10:33

Double your fee

Don;t compplain, don't tell him to go away, just double your fees! If he stays, then you are being paid for your troubles, if he doesn't then use the time and energy saved for something more rewarding and less stressful.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
24th Dec 2011 23:16

AWeb Wording Policy Contravention

The wording of this post contravenes AWeb rules. "the you know what" clearly means a slang word with the same meaning as "urine". If you had meant "the mickey" or anything similar, you would not have felt a need to "self censor" as AWeb puts it. According to the AWeb policy "self censorship" is not allowed. It is deemed by AWeb that this type of wording is offensive to us. I am horrified that AWeb fails to implement its policies equally to all posters, allowing this post whilst censoring others.

I agree that the other firm can charge what they want, and that the problem is with the client.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mumpin
26th Dec 2011 09:37

qualifications...

What is your professional body jaybee?

And what body does the other firm belong to?

I guess that might explain the client's behaviour, but obviously not if you belong to the same association.

Thanks (0)
Replying to anthonyboggiano:
avatar
By jaybee661
28th Dec 2011 18:39

@mumpin

mumpin wrote:

What is your professional body jaybee?

And what body does the other firm belong to?

I guess that might explain the client's behaviour, but obviously not if you belong to the same association.

I am AAT qualified, I guess the 'big firm' have all the qualifications under the sun, which, as I said, I accept the fact that they're reviewing it, I just feel £1,700 is a little excessive!

Thanks (0)