Different qualifications

Different qualifications

Didn't find your answer?

Hi everyone,

Over the last few months there have been a lot of posts by students unsure of which course and professional body suits them best etc. There was also the more recent post from a 23 year old running a practice and wishing to obtain a qualification based on experience. This post provoked a lot of responses, but given the circumstances it was understandably fairly negative.

It would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks between different professional bodies, qualifications and also those bodies that accept experience over exams such as the IFA amoungst others. This could include how you have been treated by your professional body (if qualified) during a dispute or query, I have seen some very interesting and seemingly unfair stories both on here and with colleagues.

There is also another question - do you think it is necessary to be qualified to call yourself an "accountant"? I have worked with very capable non-qualified accountants, but also experienced the other side of the coin.   

Look forward to reading everyones thoughts!

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By John Cotter
04th Sep 2012 12:51

Qualified is not necessarily best

I have been a Finance Director for the largest UK manufacturer of ladies outwerwear and a Finance Director for the largest UK Art Library with offices in London,  Paris, Berlin and New York. My FD experience is 15 years. 

I have over 30 years experience in Finance.

Today I call myself an accountant, I am not qualified but act as an Accoumtant for a number of local clients doing everything from book keeping, Management Accounts, VAT returns, Payroll to filing Annual Accounts and CT returns.  I also provide self assessment to individuals, partnerships and trusts.

I have seen the quality of some qualified based practices - shoddy, poor and negligent is my impression at one end of the spectrum.  Generally,however, based on the firms I have had a professional working relationship with, excellent is generally the term I would use.

I would class my service to my clients' as professional and excellent and that is borne out by my clients' opinions too.

I have no qualms these days calling myself an accountant based on the range of services I provide.  Having employed qualified staff in the past, I have at times been left wondering exactly what they are qualified in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Ken Howard
04th Sep 2012 13:11

Regulated but not necessarily by professional bodies

I think that it's essential for the word "accountant" to be protected by law and only available to be used by people and firms who are properly regulated and insured.  In my mind, that doesn't mean exclusively by the usual chartered bodies.  

I don't see any reason why there can't be a supervisory body set up, maybe administered by the FSA or HMRC or Trading Standards or whoever, with a set of rules to follow, i.e. requiring terms of business and/or letters of engagement, requiring PI insurance, requiring ongoing CPD, etc and disciplinary procedures for non compliance or where there are client complaints etc.

I'm undecided on whether this proposed body would be for all accountants or just those who aren't already covered by the various chartered and other professional bodies although I am leaning towards the former and taking away the regulatory powers from the accountancy bodies to leave them to concentrate on being members' bodies, i.e. for the benefit of members, rather than their schizophrenic role as regulators and disciplinarians also.

What I really don't like is the way that people can call themselves accountants without PI insurance or any other form of regulation which leaves the general public wide open to poor service with little come back.  But likewise, I really don't like the idea of the word being protected for sole use of the qualified-by-exams members.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By John Cotter
04th Sep 2012 14:26

PI Insurance & Accountant - its all in the name

PI Insurance does not always adequately protect a client for negligent work.

PI Insurance is not limited to qualified Accountants - a book keeper or Accountant (unqualified) can obtain PI Insurance.

A qualified Accountancy firm has produced inaccurate accounts for one of my clients and it was only when I started acting were the errors detected.  I have received written confirmation of the errors.  Honestly, the acting accounted cited the low fixed monthly fee as the reason for the poor quality of work!

I emphatically do not agree that only qualified Accountants can produce sterling worrk for their clients and provide PI cover.

Not sure how CPD helps either.  I am constantlty retraining myself not only with reference to Tolleys Company Law Handbook but with constant research to numerous resources such as the Finance Act and the Companies Act. 

Sorry I know all about CPD and I do not believe it makes a bad qualified accountant any better particularly when they fail at rudimentary book keeping techniques and accounting controls.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By The Innkeeper
04th Sep 2012 16:45

You have missed the point about PI etc

qualified accountants are obligated to have PI etc - the unqualified has a choice. If a qualified is found not to have PI thed penalties are severe.

Thanks (0)