Why should I retain membership?

Why should I retain membership?

Didn't find your answer?

Hi

I have been bitterly disappointed in the actions of my professional body - I won't go into detail and it's not relevant to my practice.  The thing is I am now considering resigning my membership and just going it alone without a practice certificate.

I realise that I cannot then represent myself as a member of a professional body etc and I might struggle to get PII (?).  Are there any other real downfalls?  Are there any PII firms that do not require a PC?

I can obtain a PC and PII and pay the membership fee if I choose - just not convinced it's worth it anymore.  The term accountant is not protected.  Is the term qualified accountant protected?

Any input would be much appreciated.

thanks

Replies (58)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By NHGlos
19th Nov 2014 11:44

Feel your pain

I work in industry/don't need a PC but feel the same with regards to my professional body. Having something to show for my hard work is what keeps me paying the fee - but I'm questioning it more and more...

I don't believe the term "qualified accountant" is directly protected, but there might be issues of how this is interpreted by potential/current clients.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By jaywood
19th Nov 2014 12:16

Years of hard work

I understand the points you make. I am also not happy with my professional body.

Upon further reflection, I have worked hard to gain my qualification. I would like it to help me for years of hard work. I will retain mine. I had a couple of clients who checked my qualifications with ACCA before they signed on with me. 

These bodies have so much power and they know we are not the big firms to stand against them. They do take advantage of the "little people".

I do not get support even when I ask for it. All I get is contact numbers for me to buy services. 

Even with all the downsides, I am retaining mine. I am not willing to give up my accreditation of years of hard work.

I cannot see our professional bodies changing. There is no pain for them to change.

 

 

 

 

Thanks (2)
By mrme89
19th Nov 2014 12:00

Qualification

I think it would be ok to say "I qualified with XXXX in XXXX but have voluntarily resigned my membership as I no longer felt it had any value to me".  

 

I think promoting yourself as a qualified accountant would be frowned upon, and, if anything else, misleading. 

 

 

Thanks (2)
Replying to Tom 7000:
avatar
By User deleted
21st Nov 2014 12:48

Misleading?

mrme89 wrote:

I think it would be ok to say "I qualified with XXXX in XXXX but have voluntarily resigned my membership as I no longer felt it had any value to me".  

 

I think promoting yourself as a qualified accountant would be frowned upon, and, if anything else, misleading. 

 

I think this is a matter of semantics.

You did, at one point, pass and 'qualify'.

You are, therefore, by definition, qualified.

 

I frown upon benefit cheats - can't do anything to stop it though

As far as misleading goes, it isn't up to a professional body to dictate, it's a matter of fact

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tom 7000:
x
By rockallj
25th Nov 2014 13:49

@ mrme89

mrme89 wrote:

I think it would be ok to say "I qualified with XXXX in XXXX but have voluntarily resigned my membership as I no longer felt it had any value to me".  

 

I think promoting yourself as a qualified accountant would be frowned upon, and, if anything else, misleading. 

 

 

 

I disagree. Resigning as a member does not take away your qualification!

To the OP, don't worry you will be able to register directly with HMRC for ML and have no problem with PII, just be honest on your application.

To everyone else, I too dithered for years over my prof body and was extremely reluctant to give up my hard earned letters, especially as I was given an F for being a member for five year and did nothing to "deserve" it. However, after 3-4 years of procrastination, I resigned and used my AAT only ever since. The incredulous response I received from the ACCA didn't address my concerns about inflexibility for those who were already in practice carrying out payroll and VAT returns and then wishing to expand on my services (which i an readily do for an emoloyer), which was my reasoning. The reply was simply, send back your certificates (OVER MY DEAD BODY, it's my qualification not yours!!) or it may result in complications should I wish to reapply in future years. Arrogant or what?

The dithering was a waste of years as once I had resigned, I was free to act as I wanted to for my clients. I just wish I had done it 5 years earlier.

I also plan to take up ICPA to bolster/replace my ACCA in time.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Roland195
19th Nov 2014 12:03

Going to need a bigger boat

There are so many accountants in practice in a similar situation we will need a bigger boat.

Assuming you are not an auditor, the only real downside encountered is that you will be unable to certify accounts for bank etc.

You will have to put up with some degree of snobbery/sabotage from the chartereds who will take any opportunity to run you down without recourse however you may experience that already depending on your current institute.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Eve 2206
19th Nov 2014 12:18

I don't have many years of work left in me - I'm in my late 50's now but need to work till I drop!  I have slowly grown to hate my professional body and all they stand for, their strategy and their attitude towards sole practitioners.  I will resent paying them a penny.  In fact, there's no guarantee I will have the fee money by the time it's due so they will try and discipline me for not paying anyway, then there's the cost of the PC on top of that.

I started a small practice a while back but needed to go back to employment, but now I find myself in an unemployed position again and have no choice but to restart my practice.  It will be small fry to start with, concentrating on sole traders, CIS, etc.  But I will need to reinvest in software unless I stick with my VT+ (but that's on my old laptop and don't know if I can download it onto a newer laptop).  My payroll software is probably not up-to-date either, so I'm not in a good position to be honest.

I could wait and see how I'm fixed by the end of the year, but I will still resent giving them a penny.

Something for me to consider over the next few weeks I think.

What about the PII though? I think this is a necessity.  I also think CPD is necessary, and I'm not trying to take shortcuts to doing things properly.  It's just the membership.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By refs8
19th Nov 2014 12:27

Try ICPA

You have nothing to loose in speaking with Tony at the ICPA and PII comes free with there membership the very reason I joined in the first place and dont regret it for a minute.

Thanks (4)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
19th Nov 2014 12:28

I hold PII and am a member of no professional body

 

I have PII without being a member of a professional body, I am merely registered with HMRC as an ASP paying them £110 per annum

I cannot remember exactly but think premium is about £170 plus IPT, it is via Bluefin.

My level of cover is really small as I am a part time practice so fee income is not that high.

Trust this helps.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Maslins
19th Nov 2014 12:37

Like many of the posters above, I feel your pain.  Just forked out >£600...for what?  As far as I'm concerned only benefit I get is ability to put the letters after my name, as to some (potential) clients that does still hold value.

I'm very glad I did the training and got the qualification, but having to pay every year to keep the qualification doesn't feel right.  I certainly don't pay Southampton University every year to be able to keep saying I'm a graduate.

Thanks (7)
Replying to Payrollgal:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
19th Nov 2014 13:02

They have more subtle methods to extract payment

Maslins wrote:

 I certainly don't pay Southampton University every year to be able to keep saying I'm a graduate.

If they are anything like the University of Edinburgh they will certainly try to get you to pay (donate) every year. 

Thanks (1)
Time for change
By Time for change
19th Nov 2014 12:47

Tony, at ICPA

will welcome you with open arms.

That guy is such a grafter and works tirelessly for all of the membership.

A telephone call won't hurt?

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Stuart.thomson
19th Nov 2014 13:00

Transfer to another body. Icaew recognises icas members for example and I'm sure others do too. Just an option. The smaller the body the better the personal service in my opinion.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
19th Nov 2014 13:02

Same with CTA

I now have to pay three fees for the privilege of being a member of the CIOT.

Annual membership.

Extra fee to use 'Chartered Tax Advisor'

Extra fee to be registered under the Money Laundering Regs.

Fees are not turnover based so a partner in a large firm earning 1m+ a year pays the same fee as a small sole trader, despite the very different money laundering risks.

It's a bit like tax software pricing:  every year they increase by 10%, and it's justified by saying 'we've added loads of new features' none of which I want.

And now of course many mortgage companies don't recognise us when submitting tax calculations and non-audited accounts, a situation that is getting worse...

Small practitioners are always badly treated by the Institutes as they are run by and for the benefit of the big firms and mainly run by people whose experience is mainly in the bigger firms.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By codling
19th Nov 2014 13:07

Unrepresented

I was originally a HMIT who moved into private practice many years ago. I gained a huge amount of experience in private practice but never had to and was never pressed to take any further qualifications even though the firms were substantial and had good profiles.

When I moved out on my own I was easily able to obtain PII plus I registered with HMRC for Money Laundering. I keep up to date with CPD and have my fingers in a few other pies (working together for instance) to maintain my knowledge and try and keep on top of the game..

For the future HMRC has confirmed that unrepresented agents will not be debarred from the client dashboard facility soon to be rolled out for agents.They will be treated in the same way as represented agents (much to their annoyance, it seems).

Although I am currently unrepresented I may well approach either the ICPA or similar in the future solely so that I can be part of a bigger mouthpiece but so far no real drawbacks seen for not being represented by one of the usual bodies.   

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Maslins
19th Nov 2014 13:50

ICPA

I've only heard good things about the ICPA...so please don't consider this post against them, but...(please correct me if any of the below are wrong):

- I don't believe lenders/banks will consider their qualification good enough?

- I don't think I'd be able to (or at least comfortable) calling myself a qualified accountant...certainly not chartered accountant.

The things ICPA offer members are potentially all very useful.  Most of them I believe I could get from ICAEW...but I've only used them a handful of times.

My point is, what I need from the institute is for lenders to consider accounts we've done valid, and to be able to call myself a chartered accountant.  These are the only things which hold value to me/my business, and I don't see that the ICPA can help with these.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Eve 2206
19th Nov 2014 13:56

Thank you

My institute/association is basically run by people who seem to have little idea of what is important to sole practitioners.  They put out these surveys but disregard the results in my opinion.  They don't give anything away. Not a thing!  It's all about making money and 'being a business'.  There is more interest in attracting students than looking after members.

And the minute you put a foot wrong, they're on you.  Prosecution happy.  Not me being prosecuted by them (yet) but they give no leeway to members who make innocent errors.  I could go on, but I'll leave it there.  I'm ashamed of them.

Your answers have certainly provided me with something else to think about.  I will get in touch with ICPA.  I really appreciate the information you have given and how some of you go about doing things.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By gigagirl
19th Nov 2014 14:06

From speaking to my friendly mortgage adviser recently, most of the residential lenders don't want certified accounts for sole traders - they act on the SA... (the form number escapes me) but it is essentially the form that HMRC send out confirming the net profit submitted on the client's tax returns.  Not sure what the procedure is for Company Accounts as I haven't encountered this situation yet.  As for PII, when I arranged cover for our practice - I did a quick quote with Policy Bee and could only choose "Accounts (Chartered or Certified)" so I called them up, explained we were neither of these, and the cover was granted.  The change to the premium was zero.  I was gobsmacked - I had expected to pay double but this wasn't the case.  Obviously we registered directly with HMRC for ML.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Cloudcounter
19th Nov 2014 14:41

Little value

I resent the money that I pay to my professional body, particularly when they spend it on opening offices all round the world, and some of the jollies that they highlight in their journal. Some of the regulation is petty, and the amounts that they fine members for trivial misdemeanours is eye watering. 

Recently they had the nerve to email me to ask if I'd like to pay the 2015 subs a full two months before they were due.  I resisted the desire to reply, but it would have been very short.  "No I ________ wouldn't."

The qualification is of little interest to most of my clients and I've been on the point of dumping it before. 

Thanks (5)
Replying to Wanderer:
By Democratus
19th Nov 2014 14:54

@cloudcounter

Cloudcounter wrote:

Recently they had the nerve to email me to ask if I'd like to pay the 2015 subs a full two months before they were due.  I resisted the desire to reply, but it would have been very short.  "No I ________ wouldn't."

ACCA?

I snorted in derision.

Thanks (2)
Replying to kevbrownuk:
avatar
By Cloudcounter
21st Nov 2014 13:26

Not Acca

Democratus wrote:

Cloudcounter wrote:

Recently they had the nerve to email me to ask if I'd like to pay the 2015 subs a full two months before they were due.  I resisted the desire to reply, but it would have been very short.  "No I ________ wouldn't."

ACCA?

I snorted in derision.

ICAEW.  Feel free to snort again

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Eve 2206
19th Nov 2014 15:25

The only way they are going to meet their strategy is to open offices all around the world! It's all about the numbers to them.  I suppose there is some study somewhere that dictates how many qualified accountants will be required in the future, but I'm concerned that by playing the numbers game they will dilute the value of the qualification.  Salaries for many accountants are already laughable (when you consider how long it takes to qualify and the academic effort that has to be put in beforehand).

There will always be some students/graduates etc doing accountancy.  If the numbers dwindle then perhaps firms will have more respect for those that stuck with it.  As it is, there are qualified accountants doing silly little finance assistant jobs that do not require 1/10th of their skills.  Such a waste because (like muscles) it's use it or lose it!

And the trivial misdemeanours, I agree, the fines are disproportionate.

I don't know what other institutes are like, but the one mentioned above has given me cause to question the whole point of its existence.  Shame, especially after being a member for so long.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tim Vane:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
19th Nov 2014 16:22

The famous quote springs to mind

eve2206 wrote:

The only way they are going to meet their strategy is to open offices all around the world! It's all about the numbers to them.  I suppose there is some study somewhere that dictates how many qualified accountants will be required in the future, but I'm concerned that by playing the numbers game they will dilute the value of the qualification.  Salaries for many accountants are already laughable (when you consider how long it takes to qualify and the academic effort that has to be put in beforehand).

There will always be some students/graduates etc doing accountancy.  If the numbers dwindle then perhaps firms will have more respect for those that stuck with it.  As it is, there are qualified accountants doing silly little finance assistant jobs that do not require 1/10th of their skills.  Such a waste because (like muscles) it's use it or lose it!

And the trivial misdemeanours, I agree, the fines are disproportionate.

I don't know what other institutes are like, but the one mentioned above has given me cause to question the whole point of its existence.  Shame, especially after being a member for so long.

I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By buttinski
21st Nov 2014 16:18

Eve

DJKL wrote:

[

I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

[/quote]

Ah Groucho Marx

Thanks (1)
avatar
By KH
21st Nov 2014 12:07

On my letterhead I state...

On my letterhead I state exactly as follows "Qualified May 1973: ICAEW" and then, in my introductory letter to all new clients, I tell them I am no longer a member of the ICAEW .... the ICAEW tried to take me to court over this letterhead statement, but I just sent them a copy of their letter stating that I had qualified with them ...... so that was that. None of my clients ever worry about this type of thing, and, should any one of them apply for a mortgage with one of the more "difficult" rules-is-rules mortgage lenders, I find that the HMRC's SA302s do the trick.

My disillusionment started when working with Cooper Bros (now PWC) in London in the late 60s and saw how big multinationals just so-so easily circumvented all the stringent currency restrictions imposed on Rhodesia ... so I got out early, and have never regretted it. But then I'm not a big player, and have never been that interested in big bucks to the extent that I would devote my life working for them ... it depends what you want out of life. I still think ethical standards, integrity, and "substance" count for a lot.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By rawa363
21st Nov 2014 12:12

You are qualified by the exams you took and the experience you have not by being a member of an institute. You can still if you choose to say you are qualified. There are many so called 'un-qualifieds' out there as members of institutes like to call them and most have thriving businesses. Clients and prospective clients couldn't care less if you are a member of an institute, they are interested in can you do the job, can you help them. Prospects assume if you set up shop as an accountant you can actually do it. In rare cases they maybe be misled but in most cases they will get a good job done. You will get PII and MLR without being a member of an institute. I would just get on with it and don't worry about institute membership.

Thanks (2)
7om
By Tom 7000
21st Nov 2014 12:37

keep it or

you cannot sign passports

you cannot give mortgage references

You get classed as teh great unwashed

Its not as prestigious at the golf club

If one day by some chance you are applying for a job....they will think you were kicked out

You might grow really big and need an audit ticket...

 

 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Marlinman
21st Nov 2014 13:48

I am a sole practitioner and the only real benefit I get from ICAEW is tax faculty membership which helps me keep up to date with tax for which I have to pay an additional fee. If they were to give me any nonsense at a practice assurance visit, I would quit just like that.

Mortgage lenders now require an SA302 from HMRC, so I no longer need to do references and I have never signed a passport application anyway.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Touchcomp
21st Nov 2014 14:03

AAT membership and MLR

A lot on this thread. Obviously much discontent with what is provided by our accounting associations. I passed AAT 4 two years ago and set up my own practice. I pay AAT £105 per year and MLR £110. So the bill is not steep. But I get nothing in return for spending that money. AAT used to do half decent online seminars for free, but have mostly stopped. Since becoming qualified I am picking up work, even a decently paid financial controller position which was handed to me by an accountant partner friend. I am now proficient with Xero and Quickfile and have known my way around Excel for years.

I assess with each client the work involved and agree terms. I include caveats about my experience, so that both parties are fully aware of what is going on. If issues come up I discuss them openly. I make it obvious if I do not have an answer and let clients know that I will try to find the answer - usually this work is unpaid.

So far all clients are happy with the service. I don't have many, but consider that if I tread the same path my business will grow well but cautiously. Everyone has to learn and research especially in our technically driven work place and no-one can be expected to have all the answers (depending on the fee you pay of course).

Accountingweb is a cut above the associations, as are most discussion forums provided by accountancy software companies. The involvement of associations should stop when exams are passed. Proficiency can be tested and also certificated in other more useful ways.

Close them down and rewrite the process. Vetting is needed but it seems as though we are doing it wrong.

It would be nice to hear some comments from an association, or someone who has positive comments to make about them.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By thomas34
21st Nov 2014 14:17

Get Out

As someone who spent 35 years in the ICAEW club and the last 10 years outside of it, I think I'm in a position to weigh up the pros and cons of what would be independence.

The cons - you'll need to cough up £110 per year to register with HMRC for MLR purposes. You won't be able to sign off mortgage references (although the present practice seems to be to ask for SA302s anyway). Can't think of any others.

The pros - apart from the above you'll be totally regulation free. You'll save several hundred pounds in annual fees which in my case enabled me to spend more on useful software and other aids. You won't run the risk of a practice assurance bod (who has likely never run a small practice) picking your files to pieces. You won't run the risk of a malicious client reporting you to your RPB with the attendant stress. You'll almost certainly be able to continue with your existing insurer after telling them of your changed circumstances (my policy with Hiscox is actually one designed for ICAEW members). You'll be able to use a "true and fair" override on company accounts without running the risk of a challenge from anyone.

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

 

Thanks (3)
avatar
By davehome
21st Nov 2014 14:29

ICAEW membership or not?

I am an FCA, virtually retired but do some consultancy for a few old clients, and help them with tax returns.  My notepaper still says "Chartered Accountant".  I am not looking for new clients.

If I don't renew my Practising Certificate am I right I cannot call myself "Chartered Acountant" but can still retain "FCA" on my notepaper? I will obviously keep up my PI.  What else is relevant?

    

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tosie
21st Nov 2014 14:50

davehome

Sorry davehome don't think you retain FCA .

As for other posters I think it is an age and situation thing. If you are under say 55 it is worth keeping membership because you may need to go back into employment.Older members may think there is no point in being a member. Personally I find it gives me a bit of confidence when talking to clients.I suspect this is a throw back to when anybody (and few did years ago) who claimed to be an accountant without belonging to a professional body was regarded as a fraud.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By eca04arp
21st Nov 2014 15:13

I'm out
It's a nonsense.
I've been a member 5 years, never once used a service they offer, never once used ACA after my na, the membership fee increases faster than inflation every year and above rival institutes.
I enquired with the institute regarding the prior 5 year membership fees and the amount I would have to pay, if, for whatever reason, I wanted to rejoin. The response came 3 weeks later, and didn't address either question, but provided reduced subscription information if member is on a low salary.
I quickly concluded from the incompetent response that I would be relinquishing my membership.
For me, the ICAEW is a farce once you have qualified, subsidising small practitioners at the expense of employed accountants.
I'm out.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Newbie19:
Man of Kent
By Kent accountant
21st Nov 2014 16:00

How?

eca04arp wrote:
For me, the ICAEW is a farce once you have qualified, subsidising small practitioners at the expense of employed accountants. I'm out.

I pay £700+ and get very little in return.

How is my practice being subsidised by employed accountants?

Thanks (3)
avatar
By John Wheeley
21st Nov 2014 15:19

It depends on your circumstances

For some jobs it is worth retaining your membership.

I have my own accountancy practice and I work part time. ICAEW  did not work for me (no support, time wasting CPD requirements, red tape, high fees) and so I resigned ten years ago.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By sue of the swan
21st Nov 2014 16:48

I agree with a lot of what has been said in this thread, I too was a registered student (halfway through technician level) member of AAT for over 8 years and paid my dues, but they have also let me down and I have now stopped paying the fee, I just pay HMRC now, I think these governing bodies could do more to assist their student members because after all we are just that, students, and who can we learn from if not them? and to pick up a point made earlier, we have sat our exams and passed, we hold the certificates as proof, they cannot take that away from us, and I tell my clients this and as long as I work within the bounds of my capabilities I will continue to offer my services with or without a governing body.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Prem Sikka
22nd Nov 2014 09:57

ACCA leadership's main priority is its own interests. Presidents are not directly elected by members and the Buggins Turn principle applies.  Members can't vote in chief executive remuneration. It does not have one-person-one-vote and the unelected president casts hundreds of votes to "appoint" council members. The delegated proxy system that ACCA uses is illegal for elections at trade unions, local elections, EU elections, general elections, mayoral election, police commissioner elections and other places. It enables the unelected leadership to appoint cronies. The AGMs are a sham. About 50 or ACCA members attend, including 36 council members and their friends. Questions are rarely answered in full as leadership hates any inquiries. Bad news is always buried. Misdemeanours of elites have been reported in the press but never appear in any annual report. There is no dialogue, just one-way speeches from the podium. Hope more member will come to witness this sham. For what it is worth, my forecast is that ACCA will be the first UK professional accountancy body to implode. It has no sizeable presence in the UK and has little public policy influence. It has little presence in emerging economic like India. The China/Hong Kong scene is changing and ACCA members no longer have the automatic right to practice. There are perennial problems in Malaysia. As BRICS countries grown in influence they will not be subservient to a body in London. The ACCA head office treats many countries like colonial outposts rather than partners giving them local autonomy and operating a UN style of body. Leadership has never explained its strategy of growth. Growth for what, where, why?  Have we never seen others who went for mindless growth and fail: Enron, WorldCom, Phones 4U? What exactly is the business/professional model of ACCA? ACCA is intolerant of criticisms.  Indeed, a previous chief executive wrote to my employer asking him to silence me. ACCA is the only royal chartered body ever to be subjected to motions of "no confidence" in the UK House of Commons.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By jaywood
22nd Nov 2014 10:08

premsikka - It is concerning the way ACCA is going. 

You speak with some knowledge on the matter. Are you Professor Prem Sikka? Of course you do not have the answer this. 

 

 

 

Thanks (1)
Replying to bounce100:
avatar
By Prem Sikka
22nd Nov 2014 10:18

ACCA

Yes, I am. I have attended almost all ACCA AGMs since 1985. I do hope that more members will attend AGMs to see how corrupt ACCA is.

Thanks (5)
avatar
By Prem Sikka
22nd Nov 2014 10:29

ACCA in House of Commons

Here is one Early Day Motion in the UK House of Commons in 1999  ( http://www.parliament.uk/edm/1998-99/685 ). The motion read "That this House condemns the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants for its failure to function in an open, democratic and accountable manner by not having any of its officeholders directly elected by its members, by using a balloting system which has been outlawed for trade unions, for permitting its President to cast 20 to 25 per cent. of all votes thus effectively appointing Council members, by the deliberate failure of its President to answer questions at the 1999 AGM, by removing reformers from Council and failing to explain the reasons to the AGM, for failure to have any non-white person as an officeholder even though 50 per cent. of its UK membership is non-white, by its failure to admit the public to its Council meetings even though it acts as a regulator under the Companies Act 1989 and the Insolvency Act 1986, by the failure to publicise the outcome of a disciplinary hearing against its Vice-President in its own in-house magazine, by threatening and silencing reformers and pressurising their employers and by legal threats, and for its failure to disclose the ú50,000 per annum spent by its officeholders on taking friends, spouses and partners on world travels, even though the Financial Reporting Standard 8 requires this should be disclosed; and therefore considers that an ACCA which takes so little account of the public interest is unfit to be a regulatory body and urges the Government to suspend its regulatory powers and launch an independent inquiry into its affairs". Little has changed. ACCA in recent years has officially opposed (and lost) the National Minimum Wage whilst the chief executive collects vast remuneration package. They are not only out of touch with the membership but also with the public mood.      

Thanks (8)
avatar
By jaywood
22nd Nov 2014 10:34

Thanks

I read some of your articles Professor. They are good. 

I think partly as members we are to blame for not taking part in the running of ACCA. I am not sure if members can change anything (can they?). 

ACCA is a subscription organisation, I see your point about ACCA leadership in it for themselves. Once they are in, it is a cushy life. 

It is important that ACCA leadership are accountable to their fee paying members. This does not appear to be the case. In fact they are make it more difficult for their members. 

Question to all - What can members do to make ACCA leadership accountable and change ACCA so it is relevant to UK accountants in practice and in other sectors? 

Bearing in mind we all lead such busy lives, ideally it needs to be something that can be done on the net. Is that possible? 

 

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By GuestXXX
17th Mar 2015 17:30

.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Nov 2014 13:36

@premsikka

Your views on the ACCA have been there on the internet at least may be for the last two decades?Technically what you have been saying about how the ACCA is run may be correct. However, in order for what you say to be correct there must be a gang at the core of ACCA that continues to benefit from the way ACCA is run, generation after generation. I would find it difficult to identify such a core particularly given that over the years the council has changed, the executive has changed and the members too have changed. 

I don't think ACCA governance is greatly different from other bodies - if one were to go by the recent new item doing the rounds CIMA executive fought and spent a considerable sum trying to discipline a council member! And then lost it!! ICAEW is no different. The executive calls the shots despite these bodies being membership-based ones - and that's  a fact and will not change unless majority of members take active interest in the professional bodies affairs. But how that is any different from how PLCs are run when it comes to shareholder interests?? Except that institutional shareholders can have their way!

Edit: I have no particular attachment or detachment with any body as I have been a member of four of them!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By jaywood
22nd Nov 2014 16:49

ACCA

I have no doubt ACCA's key staff would be reading this. 

Can we have a response from ACCA? This is far better than ACCA inactive and boring linkedin group.

OPs have to be approved by ACCA (!) before becoming public on ACCA linkedin group.  

 

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
By Democratus
24th Nov 2014 10:38

Deafening Silence.....

jaywood wrote:

I have no doubt ACCA's key staff would be reading this. 

Can we have a response from ACCA? This is far better than ACCA inactive and boring linkedin group.

OPs have to be approved by ACCA (!) before becoming public on ACCA linkedin group.  

 

Only the wind and a lone tumbleweed drifting past.................................

Thanks (1)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By Prem Sikka
24th Nov 2014 12:39

No doubt there would be the usual apple-pie and motherhood statements, but little worthwhile action. Accountability pressures on the officialdom are weak. No direct election of officeholders, no vote on chief executive remuneration, members can't see council meeting minutes, AGMs are a sham, membership fees can be increased with a vote from members, council is appointed and magazine won't run anything critical of the leadership. ACCA is a banana republic, or may be even banana republics won't want to be associated with it. Anywhere else someone getting 2% of the vote of the eligible electorate would resign in shame, but at ACCA they become council members and make decisions. Council members are gagged by signing  confidentiality agreement/code. This is a complete violation of human rights as council election candidates have to put the leadership's prejudices before their conscience  and freedom of speech. ACCA have not learn any lessons from the debacle at CIMA over its attempts to silence Margaret May. ACCA won't change voluntarily unless there is a major crisis. Members should remember that if things go seriously wrong they are personally liable for the Association's debts. Yet members have no input into any strategy and are not even told of any major problems. If ACCA's unelected leadership is going to respond, perhaps it can tell members about its legal wranglings in India. Read here about how ACCA used its enormous resources against a  retired small practitioner, wasted members' money and even had to apologise for misleading a court, but none of it has ever been communicated to members in annual reports or the official magazine  http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/ACCOUNTABILITY_OF_THE_ACCOUNTANCY_BODIES__THE_PEC.pdf?paperid=689294 and also see here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089083890400068X

Thanks (4)
avatar
By thomas34
22nd Nov 2014 19:36

Audit

From my reading of the Companies Act 2006 one has to be a member of one of these illustrious bodies in order to carry out a company audit. I may be wrong but I believe one of the earlier Companies Acts (possibly 1948 as that was the one I was first weaned on) allowed the Department of Trade (or whatever it was called then) to approve someone who fell outside of these parameters.

It may need a campaign to reinstate this earlier provision as there is clearly a restraint of trade issue here. I suspect there would be no appetite for this because of the additional oversight required but in the light of successive scandals involving our biggest players it would appear logical to open up the market. If only Austin Mitchell were 30 years younger.

 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Eve 2206
23rd Nov 2014 02:28

Audit

It is the Companies Act 2006 that states a statutory auditor must be regulated by one of the relevant bodies.  But I can't get an audit certificate now as I do not have sufficient audit experience - annoying as I would not be looking to audit a PLC anyway, and my only audit experience was with PwC. So that won't affect me.  Also, ACCA (and probably same with the other(s)) only visit practices that do audits.  They don't have the staff to do more.

I will make enquiries with HMRC about paying them instead.  I could do without paying out the money but 'it is what it is' as they say!

The comments provided by everyone above have highlighted the pros and cons with this, and I'm grateful for the input. 

I also think that ACCA need to refocus their attention on what made them in the first place - and stop chasing the numbers.  It may be a business but it's one that has lost its way a bit.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By MSD1968
23rd Nov 2014 11:09

Passport office guidance allows "accountant" to countersign a passport application. No need to be qualified. Elsewhere the guidance mentions "member...of a professional body" as a separate entry. This would indicate that it is not necessary to be a "qualified accountant". I note also that if you have only known the individual in a professional capacity (i.e. as a client), you cannot countersign - you must be a friend, neighbour or colleague.

I was ICAEW, I am now ICPA. I have never had a query from the Passport Office about my "standing in the community".

Thanks (4)
Replying to Ian McTernan CTA:
avatar
By GuestXXX
17th Mar 2015 17:31

.

Thanks (3)

Pages