You might also be interested in
Replies (10)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
ICPA needs support from all ........ why?
I wonder how many of you remember when the CIOT was young... you could join just by proving experience, or by submitting a 5000 word thesis on an aspect of taxation (for fellowship).
It pulled people in, gained in stature, and then moved to a 2 level exam, which split with the first part going for the ATT.
From this the body developed in reputation until it gained chartered status.
At present you can join the ICPA only if you have a minimum of 5 years practice experience (as a member) or as a student if you are emplyed in accountancy or studying for a recognised accountancy qualification.
If the industry is to be regulated in any way then we all should support and promote the ICPA to make it the recognised minimum starting point for operating as an accountant. With all qualifieds and all decent unqialifieds backing it there would be the funds to promote to the public (and lobby government) that not ICPA means not an Accountant.
Then, like the CIOT the ICPA can develop, ensuring a minimum standard has to be achieved by anyone in future who wishes to call themselves accountants - the other professional accounting bodies can then continue to promote themselves as higher qualifications (or merge together as many members have been asking them to do for many years).
For information - i'm putting my money where my mouth is and applying to join the ICPA in addition to my other institute memberships.
Public perception
We all know that there are good "unqualified" or "qualified by experience Accountants" and bad qualified Accountants but it would probbaly be fair to say that overall and in percentage terms, there are more bad unqualified Accountants than bad qualified Accountants.
What I believe is the most important aspect is that of public perception. If someone calls themselves an Accountant then the ordinary man in the street may in many circumstances think that person to be qualified even they are not, even if they are not holding themselves out to be qualified.
Why not therefore let anyone still call themselves an Accountant but if they are not qualified, make sure that it says so on all correspondence and advertising. This way the public and potential clients are fully aware and can make a fully informed decision on whether to engage someone's services.
What about the end result?
The term accountant has become part of the language but interestingly it does not exist in MOST languages in the world.
But whether it's legal or not, I think the most important factor or point might be the end result of the accountant's work... which should be helping the client contol his finances better.
The thinking here seems to go toward legal responsibility when things go wrong - legally wrong. Shouldn't there be some qualification based on what clients want and their view on what they receive?
Or is the clients' view totally irrelevant to this issue? Pray tell my learned friends... ;)
Best wishes
Harry Kafka
http://www.accountancymarketing.co.uk
Existing unquals need not worry
Very much like when auditing was regulated, any existing people in practice would have to be brought into an umbrella professional body.
I do not think that ICPA et al need to be concerned by this development in the UK.
Everyone I have spoken in the lobbying process recognises that existing unqualified practising accountants would have to be able to continue in business.
However, in future, I can see that you would need as a minimum AAT PC to practice (for many non-audit clients I believe that the AAT qualification and PC will be sufficient).
I dont think many people 'in power' are talking about CCAB body members only.
defining "accountants"
The argument shouldn't be about protectionism because the ability to pass exams and pays subs doesn't make a person an effective accountant. Nor should it be about alienating those, qualified or unqualified, who do a good job for their clients. Surely, it's all about protecting potential users of accountants from cowboys, regardless of qualification?
Trying to educate potential users as to what they should look for in an accountant - and the alleged protections inherent in using someone governed by a recognised body - just doesn't work. If it had, this argument wouldn't have gone on for as long as it has.
And suggesting that a local plumber screwed by poor service can resort to the legal system completely ignores the fact that our legal system is beyond most people's financial range.
2 suggestions that might help people looking for an accountant:
1 Anyone using the title accountant/offering accountancy services must carry professional indemnity insurance, display the current certificate, as with other forms of liability insurance, and quote the policy number on his/her letterhead.
2 Develop and publisise an easily understood "kite" mark - available only to those "accountants" who can produce a minimum of say 20 positive client testimonials and who are not present on any HMRC blacklists (as if such things would exist!). Not sure who would administer this -local trading standards?
Protecting the public is what this should be about and that's not something I'm convinced professional institutes are capable of seen to be doing.
Good Accountants or Not
Just one point not covered by any of the comments that I have seen is the level of competence. Despite reading about unqualified which I am and in the process of starting the climb to full qualification at aged 50 years (ACCA). I have come up against poor work by qualified accountants even to the extent that Company Accounts don't cast up. What I would like to see is a regular compentency check for diffferent levels accepted by ALL the professional bodies. This would then make it easy for the public to choose whom they wanted. We (accountants)are responsible to get shot of the cowboys.
So how about it - rather than trying to tie up the word Accountants and letting politicians screw it up!
Control needed for the protection of the young
My niece has just started work with a company, and thought that they were training her to be an accountant.
What they are actually training her to be, I eventually dragged out of her and her mother, is an accounting technician, but the term accountant is the term casually used by many who are offering accounting technician training, and by quite a few of those who have the AAT qualification.
In my experience these people do not have the training or experience to call themselves accountants, but have been persuaded by the people selling the courses that that is what they are.
I am a QBE company accountant, having been the company accountant for a number of companies over a number of years and would quite happily change that term to commercial manager or financial controller, both terms used by past employers for the post of company accountant, if it stopped people being duped into thinking that they are going to become an accountant by taking AAT.
Accountants Under Fire
We at the ICPA have monitored the situation regarding the protection of the term Accountant and indeed Acountancy Services for some considerable time.
We have noted the disparaging terms used by the Chair of the ICAS and others to those Accountants who are not members of a CCAB organisation and we are totally opposed to the protection sought.
We are constantly confronted with comments about "Public Interest" and how this whole drive for protection is to safeguard the public and definately not to appease the organisations general practice members because they have done so little for these members in recent times.
No evidence of public unrest has been provided save for the usual postings about the quality of work by unqualifieds when new clients are taken on.
This of course cuts both ways as we all know.
Our website at www.accountantsunderfire.org.uk has been generating a great deal of Interest and has provided us with a significant amount of data to use should this drive for protection proceed.
Regulation
I agree with Huw Baker, but regulation should be done properly.
The idea is to ensure that those giving advice/preparing accounts are qualified to do so, therefore to regulate properly to give accountancy advice you need to have a recognised accountancy qualification, likewise to give tax advice you should be a chartered tax advisor, and for management advice you should be a member of the chartered management institute..........
Hands up how many accountants (qualified or not) give tax or management advice WITHOUT having any qualifications in those fields? you cannot expect to regulate one patch whilst offering unqualified advice in other areas .... its called having a level playing field.
Making a mistake when adding up accounts is minor compared to giving poor (or bad) advice for tax planning or developing the clients business. On behalf of those of us who have spent time money & effort to extend our qualifications I propose that we first try to get Tax & business planning regulated (since thats where most problems arise from), and only when that is done do we move to regulate the provision of accountancy services
(its called getting your own house in order before moaning about the neighbours)
Who thinks it is required - the Public or Accountants?
I and I suspect pretty well everyone who has had to dealt with Estate Agents understand why people feel they need to be regulated. For the same reason we all understand why investment advisors found themselves regulated with the advent of the Financial Services Act.
But Accountants? How often do we hear about "rouge" unqualified accountants, that cause havoc with their dealings with the General Public?
The only complaints that occur seems to be against the qualified, Chartered or otherwise. I consider they are already regulated well - as by the numbers of disciplinary cases that do go forward to the various Institutes. Of course there are those that committ criminal offences, but that makes no difference if you are qualified or not.
It is only when the public at large is put at risk that we need to worry - and as far as I can see, it is only the profession that seems to think there is a problem.