Preparing company accounts for a client and as usual "find" the company on the companies house website just to check annual rtn in order etc etc . Only to find using the "beta service " one can download accounts for free, gratis, nitto .
These used to cost a £1 each from memory - what has changed - is this a short term discount or indefinite.?
Absolutely appalled by the quality of accounts that some agents are submitting - they should be ashamed - no fixed asset , no overdrawn DLA , no ultimate controlling party notes
Replies (18)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
does anyone know whenever I click on a pdf to view/open it's all black screen?
I'm talking about on the new beta service btw.........
Black or blank?
The PDF display in some browsers results in some of the Companies House PDFs coming up blank within the browser itself.
An "Open with Different Viewer" button should appear at the top of the browser window when this happens. That will allow you to open it up with PDF viewer.
Black..........looks like someone has scanned in a piece of black paper but then pulled it out at the end.
Using IE. no idea what version. IE7 I am guessing? Bought computer 12 months ago.........
Hate to say it, but many of the accounts I've seen filed by (I regret to say it) smaller firms of accountants usually stop after the Creditors notes, even where the client may be medium sized and not entitled to file abbreviated accounts (I know... I know.... Cost of Sales... whoopie do).
.
@vallient and AndP, Re accounts, most of ours qualify for micro accounts, so almost no notes at all.
I must admit I see all these so called accountants from larger firms filing data that is not required by law, I scoff at their lack of standards and professionalism in placing in full public view anything other than the bare minimum.
Or actually I dont. I just tell the new client that they didn't need to make public as much data, and would they like to make public less?
They are however not much, if any, quicker to produce.
Gratuitous disclosure
Can you give any examples of gratuitous disclosure in accounts filed at Companies House?
I am in the camp that usually sees under-disclosure and can't remember the last time I saw excessive disclosure, except that many years ago I saw a set of accounts at CH that had the CT computation as the last page!
.
@John, well set i saw this morning and declined to do, 0601 1738 (random space so I don't get outed on a google search)
It has a P&L on it for goodness sake, its not even properly abbreviated, let alone micro which was in place from September 2013, so missed on two consecutive years.
Well that's a company that has chosen to file its full accounts. Is that your point? I can't see that the full accounts contain excessive disclosure for full accounts.
I thought you were referring to abbreviated accounts filed with too much disclosure in for abbreviated accounts. Looking at the accounts of a company that has chosen to file its full accounts isn't the same thing at all. If that's what you say makes you scoff at other accountants' lack of standards and professionalism then I think your scoffing is misplaced.
In fairness, I have seen full accounts filed (often for flat management companies) that include the Management P&L - whether by accident or design I don't know.
Personally, over disclosure I always welcome. It's under disclosure that annoys me.
.
@John, my point is the accountant has massively overdisclosed, by filing a full balance sheet and P&L when the company qualifies as micro.
Given the conversation I had this morning with the owner, your assertion this was by choice of is probably well wide of the mark. I must admit to struggling to know under what circumstances you would actively choose to over-disclose. The only one I can think of is to help a credit rating, which is not applicable here.
My original comment was rather tounge in cheek given the comments above tarring small practice with poor accounts when I have seen plenty of pish from larger ones, as well as smalls ones, qualified ones and unqualified ones.
Personally I would have thought it one of the most unproffessional things you can do to overdisclose any information about a client. I think we would all agree if you sat in the pub and told everyone about the turnover of client X and what they spent on travel costs it would be gross misconduct. So why is it OK to broadcast that same private information via Companies House when there is no need?
Micro entity and abbreviated accounts are optional. Not all clients want to take those options.
Accountants should of course discuss all the options with their clients and the cost of the various options, and take their instructions as to which accounts they wish to file at CH. If an accountant does not do so and then takes it upon themselves to file full accounts then yes they are letting their clients down.
Abbreviated Accounts filed up to 30.11.13
Interesting to note that abbreviated accounts were filed for every year up to, and including, 30th November 2013, and only the accounts to 30th November 2014 are full accounts. As the accounts were apparently filed late (companies house stamp says they were received on 24th September 2015) I wonder if, in haste, the wrong set of accounts were put in the post by mistake?