Auto-Enrolment

Auto-Enrolment

Didn't find your answer?

We're starting to think about the question of where we fit in with Auto Enrolment as Accountants and I'm really interested to hear what other firms are thinking.

Having done a bit of research, the main service that I think we would provide would be adding on to the payroll service and providing reports to the potential pension provider on employee's eligibility etc. 

Potentially we could communicate with employees ourselves and get their responses for opting in or out but this sounds like it would be a huge admin burden on the payroll department.

We also need to make a decision on software upgrades which involves the usual suspects, Sage, Iris, Star etc. Does anyone have any strong feelings on which payroll software provider has the best offering for Auto Enrolment? 

The good news is that our client base is mainly SMEs which means the staging dates are pretty far off for now. However, I feel we need to be able to make a decision on our service offering pretty soon so we're clear on what our message is to clients.

There's a fine line with not being FCA regulated and discussing this type of thing with clients which I think we also need to be careful about.

Finally, is it all worth it? Should we just steer clear and let the IFAs do their thing or is it our duty as our client's advisor to let them know about their obligations?

We want to seize the opportunity to do more for our clients but don't want to over-estimate the opportunity and spend too much time on it with not much impact on the bottom line.

Replies (197)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By SteveB@LPAES
26th Sep 2014 13:22

The internet is a wonderful place.....

I am sure that there is also a guide to open heart surgery on the internet as well but I don't think I will be trying that any time soon unless I am a surgeon.

Thanks (1)
Replying to 356B:
avatar
By Carolynne
26th Sep 2014 13:57

I Agree

I would not be recommending which route a client takes, or setting their schemes up.  I am not qualified to do so.  But as I run numerous payrolls as part of my accounts package with clients, I would need to process the deductions and forward the info onto the providers monthly, for which I could charge extra money for doing.    So what I was really trying to ascertain was how can you find someone to trust, that you would be providing your client bank details to.  It is a real worry for some of us out there, as how easy would it be once they have got to know your client when booking them up for auto enrolment that they mention another 'accountant' friend of theirs.  I may sound cynical, but it is a fear for me.

Thanks (0)
Replying to 356B:
avatar
By chatman
26th Sep 2014 15:10

You cannot learn open heart surgery from the internet

SteveB @ LPAES wrote:

I am sure that there is also a guide to open heart surgery on the internet as well but I don't think I will be trying that any time soon unless I am a surgeon.

Open heart surgery is not comparable Steve. There are things you can learn from the internet and things you cannot. Your staging date and many of the basic rules of auto-enrolment can be learnt from the TPR web site. Heart surgery cannot. That is why heart surgeons need to be so highly qualified.

Thanks (0)
Replying to nick4857325:
By Ian Batterbee
26th Sep 2014 16:21

Open heart surgery vs Accountancy

chatman wrote:

SteveB @ LPAES wrote:

I am sure that there is also a guide to open heart surgery on the internet as well but I don't think I will be trying that any time soon unless I am a surgeon.

Open heart surgery is not comparable Steve. There are things you can learn from the internet and things you cannot. Your staging date and many of the basic rules of auto-enrolment can be learnt from the TPR web site. Heart surgery cannot. That is why heart surgeons need to be so highly qualified.

 

Chatman

 

You are correct, you dont need to pay to get the info you suggest.

 

With that basic information, you could possibly get things correct, or more likely get it anywhere from a bit, to very wrong.

 

Why dont people run their own payroll?  They could buy Sage and do it, right?

 

Or buy some accounts software and do their own tax returns?

 

I pay my accountant/tax advsier to inform me of the best way to set up my business, how to account throughout the year, and what opportunities I have to use the tax planning strategies as I go along.  Oh, and of course to file my compliance returns in a timely manner, thus avoiding fines.

 

Other people turn up on 31st January and demand their accountant file their return.

 

I know which of the two you can expect better outcomes from.

 

My AE clients pay me to structure their schemes most effectively, and to help them avoid the pitfalls of tPR.  I see it as much the same.

Thanks (0)
Replying to EJonesFM:
avatar
By chatman
26th Sep 2014 18:15

No they couldn't

Ian Batterbee wrote:
Why dont people run their own payroll?  They could buy Sage and do it, right?

Or buy some accounts software and do their own tax returns?

No, they couldn't

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 14:04

Madness

Am I alone in thinking that this auto enrolment is madness?

There are so many examples of people involved in the pensions industry ripping off people yet now the government is making it compulsory to use pension providers.

They then insist on the employer's getting advice. Shouldn't the advice be given to the employees?

What useful advice can an IFA give when the opportunities for investment are so limited?

Thanks (2)
By SteveB@LPAES
26th Sep 2014 14:25

Peter,

There is nothing in the legislation that says anyone must seek advice.

In fact AE is set up in such a way that employees should be able to be enrolled into their employers scheme and make no investment decisions at all and benefit from their contribution.

Which scheme an employer chooses is very much down to them and as long a it meets the criteria set by the legislation then there is no comeback on the employer. Any pension provider can answer that question .."is this scheme fit for Auto Enrolment uses" (no jargon there) and if the answer is yes (they may call this a Qualifying Workplace Pension Scheme or QWPS) then you have complied.

If an employer is of a mind to have a good quality scheme and wants to invest in their employees then this is an advice process and advice costs money as there is risk in this advice and there is time.

The government have not suddenly given the pensions industry a licence to print money, far from it, as we are seeing so many advisers stepping away from this area and providers pulling up the drawbridge already.

 

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 14:36

Who?

I think there's some confusion between employers and employees. The employees are the people who will be getting income from the scheme yet they are not making the decisions.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 14:41

The Pensions Regulator advice

http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/employers/finding-a-provider.aspx...

"Who can help you find a provider?

You could speak to a financial adviser about finding a provider.

You can find a financial adviser at unbiased.co.uk.

If you have an accountant or employee benefit consultant (EBC), they may be able to help you to find a provider or an adviser that can help."

I assume that the accountant has to be regulated in some way but this has not been made clear.

What about this advice on another website?:

"You can get financial advice from a professional financial adviser. The adviser will look at your personal circumstances and your financial plans and recommend products to help you meet your needs."

In the auto enrolment situation this is not happening. The employer is being given advice.

 

Thanks (1)
By SteveB@LPAES
26th Sep 2014 15:01

Advice

Peter,

If advice is sought it is in two different ways.

1. An employers drivers for choosing a provider may be different to the employees reason for joining

2. the type of scheme that all employees would like will not necessarily suit their employer

If we were to please everyone then the employer would run a different scheme for each of their employees and provide advice for each on investment choices. We all know that this will be unrealistic and so an employer chooses a pension scheme based on a balance of what they think will be "good for their employees". That employee always has teh option to opt out if tehy feel that it is bad value for money of indeed poor advice.

The problem lies in the fact that we have nearly 10,000,000,000 employees without adequate pension provision (or we did in Oct 2012) and now half of them have some sort of scheme which meets a minimum criteria set by government and are saving for their future. This is a good thing.

We are, however only 3% through the number of employers who need to do this and so we need to find a way of achieving this in a cost effective way. I would love to thing that every employer would seek advice and that every employee would do the same but first we are not all financially equiped to do this and we are not all engaged/experienced in the investment choices available. We have to start somewhere and trusting to trustees of the master trust pension arrangements with their IGC's is again...as good a starting place as an I feel....but maybe I am just to optimistic??

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 15:17

My clients

The vast majority of the employees I prepare payroll for are director's of limited companies and I don't think they will be interested in auto enrolment.

Can they opt out before a scheme is set up or do they have to go through an administrative nightmare?

Thanks (0)
Replying to gainsborough:
avatar
By DavidRoderick
29th Sep 2014 09:20

my clients

The legislation applies to anyone employing 2 or more individuals which will include the directors. Therefore you have to have the process in place even if none of the employees actually want to join and first they must be enrolled before they can opt out. You cannot opt out beforehand and do not encourage people to try! This situation was confirmed by TPR when being applied to those with protection on their pension pots despite the obvious tax implications of them joining a new pension plan

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to LostinSuspense:
By Ian Batterbee
29th Sep 2014 09:42

Opting out.

DavidRoderick wrote:

Therefore you have to have the process in place even if none of the employees actually want to join and first they must be enrolled before they can opt out. You cannot opt out beforehand and do not encourage people to try! This situation was confirmed by TPR when being applied to those with protection on their pension pots despite the obvious tax implications of them joining a new pension plan

 

 

Guys

 

David's point here is very important.

 

A number of clients thought that they would just "opt them all out".......and also totally over estimated the amount of opt outs, thinking that 95% of people would opt out, and it ended up being the reverse.

 

In simple terms, the government wants as many people enrolled, and staying in pensions as possible.  Compulsion will be along shortly.

Thanks (0)
Replying to LostinSuspense:
avatar
By Irishdaz
29th Sep 2014 13:06

Fixed/Enhanced Protection etc

David you are right.

Just to clarify, the reason that being Auto Enrolled doesn't cause issues with Protection is that if the employee opts out, within the prescribed opt-out window then they are deemed to have never joined.

Of course it is likely that they may not realise the urgency of opting out, and inadvertently fall foul

Thanks (0)
Replying to gainsborough:
By Philip950
30th Sep 2014 13:03

Director only companies and AE

petersaxton wrote:

The vast majority of the employees I prepare payroll for are director's of limited companies and I don't think they will be interested in auto enrolment.

Can they opt out before a scheme is set up or do they have to go through an administrative nightmare?

Quite right Peter - they won't be interested in AE. Ideally they would like to be in a position such that their company has no AE requirement. My view of this is contained here: http://blog.mercia-group.co.uk/2014/05/19/pension-auto-enrolment-does-a-...

However if the company has an AE requirement, then the 'administrative nightmare' will kick in (even though the directors decide to opt out).

Thanks (0)

HOW significant is AE to Accountants

Carolyn probably made the most telling point of all when she stated she has changed her payroll provider of longstanding in favour of one with better AE support.

If that doesn't highlight the significance of AE to accountants then nothing will. How often do you change payroll provider! SAGE are aggressively marketing their services in this space to secure more customers.

This is a big deal. The default option of Self-Service NEST for all, irrespective of payroll system is not one an accountant will look back on and think it was their best move. There are so many important factors to consider before coming up with a solution and a number of parties need to be involved.

I am dealing with a Company and the accountant is refusing to engage and their payroll system does not support AE. While we could build a solution around additional middleware with engagement, without it, the easier solution may be to move payroll system - which means move accountant. This is a longstanding relationship - well before mine - but the employer is considering the possibility There is a clear threat to accountants' clients posed by AE which they should be alive to.

Financial Advisors come in all shapes and sizes so be wary of who you might partner up with but they are likely to be in a position to understand the overall picture and recommend a conbination suitable to all - who are involved!

Stephen James
Chartered Financial Planner
Charles Derby Financial Services
Specialists in Auto Enrolment
 

Thanks (0)
Replying to sunbeam42:
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 15:35

I don't agree

Stephen James Chartered Financial Ppanner wrote:

Carolyn probably made the most telling point of all when she stated she has changed her payroll provider of longstanding in favour of one with better AE support.

If that doesn't highlight the significance of AE to accountants then nothing will. How often do you change payroll provider! SAGE are aggressively marketing their services in this space to secure more customers.

This is a big deal. The default option of Self-Service NEST for all, irrespective of payroll system is not one an accountant will look back on and think it was their best move. There are so many important factors to consider before coming up with a solution and a number of parties need to be involved.

I am dealing with a Company and the accountant is refusing to engage and their payroll system does not support AE. While we could build a solution around additional middleware with engagement, without it, the easier solution may be to move payroll system - which means move accountant. This is a longstanding relationship - well before mine - but the employer is considering the possibility There is a clear threat to accountants' clients posed by AE which they should be alive to.

Financial Advisors come in all shapes and sizes so be wary of who you might partner up with but they are likely to be in a position to understand the overall picture and recommend a conbination suitable to all - who are involved!

Stephen James

Carolynne didn't state she has changed her payroll provider of longstanding in favour of one with better AE support.

The accountant you refer to must be an exception. I would think that the vast majority of accountants will deal with AE.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johngroganjga:
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 15:55

Apologies

Marina Longden wrote:

Petersaxton, in fairness to Stephen James he is referring to a different person (Carolynne) who posted in response to my thread on linkedin.

 

Feel free to take a look https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Auto-enrolment-questions-as-asked-380607...

 

Stephen kindly agreed to contribute here as well for the benefit of our readers. I hope this helps to clear up the confusion.

 

Thank you,

Marina

Account Manager 

Sift media (for AccountingWEB)

I understand now. I do think that many accountants who deal with only small companies are waiting for payroll providers to update their software. Moneysoft seems to have a lot of fans here but at present they seem to be behind Sage and BrightPay.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Accountant A:
By Mike Roberts
29th Sep 2014 14:38

Moneysoft

Unfortunately Moneysoft will not be fully AE ready, according to to George McHamish from Moneysoft. His quote to me was" to be fully "AE ready we would need to produce a program that was 90% pensions and 10% payroll - we have no intention of doing that!" which is a shame as Mone ysoft is very user friendly.  

Thanks (0)
Replying to C Graham:
avatar
By chatman
29th Sep 2014 15:04

Moneysoft

mike roberts wrote:

Unfortunately Moneysoft will not be fully AE ready, according to to George McHamish from Moneysoft. His quote to me was" to be fully "AE ready we would need to produce a program that was 90% pensions and 10% payroll - we have no intention of doing that!" which is a shame as Mone ysoft is very user friendly.  

As I understand it, Moneysoft will assess the employees, calculate the contributions and produce the output file required for NEST, NOW:Pensions and Peoples Pension (with files for other pension providers to follow in due course), which I think is the hardest thing, but you are right that it will not do the communications, opt-outs etc, which I think requires very good administrative systems to ensure the work is done and evidence retained. Moneysoft has a very good page at http://moneysoft.co.uk/payroll-software/payroll-manager-pensions-auto-en... explaining what they do and some basic stuff about auto-enrolment.

Thanks (0)
Replying to C Graham:
By xtraman88
29th Sep 2014 19:24

Moneysoft

mike roberts wrote:

Unfortunately Moneysoft will not be fully AE ready, according to to George McHamish from Moneysoft. His quote to me was" to be fully "AE ready we would need to produce a program that was 90% pensions and 10% payroll - we have no intention of doing that!" which is a shame as Mone ysoft is very user friendly.  

Mike

There is software that will allow you to carry on using moneysoft and is billed to client with no cost to you

Steve

Thanks (0)
By SteveB@LPAES
26th Sep 2014 15:45

Qualifications

..as are financial advisers who since 2012 have had to be a least QCF4 qualified and chartered or QCF6 as a preference. They cannot perform heart surgery with these qualifications but very much like accounting qualifications it allows them to translate the many pages of statute that form of tax and investment systems.

In ref to your other question on evidence for advice I would point in the direction of the Retail Distribution Review which took place and was implemented in 2012.It stipulated the way in which advice is delivered and the differences between independent advice/restricted advice and tied advice.

 

Thanks (0)
By SteveB@LPAES
26th Sep 2014 16:04

Administrators

Anyone with one additional employee (one person band are exempt right now) must comply with the legislation whether they end up in a pension scheme or not.

So unfortunately when we get to 2017 these guys will need to fall in line.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Matrix:
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 16:15

Where's it say that?

<a href="mailto:SteveB@LPAES">SteveB@LPAES</a> wrote:

Anyone with one additional employee (one person band are exempt right now) must comply with the legislation whether they end up in a pension scheme or not.

So unfortunately when we get to 2017 these guys will need to fall in line.

http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/employers/does-automatic-enrolmen...

There's no mention of a one person band being exempt.

There's still the problem of an employer with very few employees with nobody wanting to be enrolled.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 16:22

Software

Doesn't the advertising always say that there's some new feature yet when you look at it it's absolutely rubbish. When you complain they say their next version will be better!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ethan3097:
avatar
By chatman
26th Sep 2014 17:39

That'll be in the next version.

petersaxton wrote:

Doesn't the advertising always say that there's some new feature yet when you look at it it's absolutely rubbish. When you complain they say their next version will be better!

That's Intuit you're thinking of Peter.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
26th Sep 2014 17:42

@Peter Saxton

@ Peter Saxton

http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/docs/detailed-guidance-1.pdf

"One-person companies
29. If an individual is a director of a company and the company has no other employees, that individual is not a worker by virtue of any office that they hold or contract of employment under which they work. The company is therefore not subject to the employer duties in relation to that individual."

Thanks (0)
Replying to spidersong:
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 17:52

Thanks

chatman wrote:

@ Peter Saxton

http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/docs/detailed-guidance-1.pdf

"One-person companies
29. If an individual is a director of a company and the company has no other employees, that individual is not a worker by virtue of any office that they hold or contract of employment under which they work. The company is therefore not subject to the employer duties in relation to that individual."

I don't know why they didn't mention that with the other exceptions which were more prominent.

What about two-people companies?

Thanks (0)
Replying to sammerchant:
avatar
By chatman
26th Sep 2014 18:12

Two-people companies

petersaxton wrote:
What about two-people companies?

I think they're caught.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kentnix:
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 20:10

I'm not sure

chatman wrote:

petersaxton wrote:
What about two-people companies?

I think they're caught.

My judgement - for what it's worth:

One director and no employees - director isn't a worker even if they have a contract of employment

One director and one employee are both workers if they have contracts of employment

One director (no contract of employment) and one employee (contract of employment) - director not a worker?

Two or more directors (no contracts of employment) and no employees - directors not workers?

Two director's

"One-person companies

29. If an individual is a director of a company and the company has no

other employees, that individual is not a worker by virtue of any

office that they hold or contract of employment under which they

work. The company is therefore not subject to the employer duties

in relation to that individual.

However, if the company takes on a second worker, and both

the director and the new employee work under a contract of

employment, then both the director and the new employee will be

workers for the purposes of the employer duties and the company

will have responsibilities in relation to both of them.

Office-holders

33. An office-holder is not normally a worker.

34. An office-holder has no contract or service agreement in relation

to their appointment, nor do they usually receive a salary or regular

remuneration for their services. They may however, be paid a fee for

their services or to cover their expenses.

35. Examples of office-holders who are not normally workers include:

• non-executive directors

• company secretaries

• board members of statutory bodies

• trustees.

36. It is very important to consider the specific circumstances of the

individual. Sometimes a person who appears to be an office-holder

may also have a contract of service for part of their duties and will

therefore be a worker in respect of those duties."

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
26th Sep 2014 17:43

NOW question

Thanks Ian

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 19:54

Ability

Accountancy has a certain skill and knowledge requirement.

It should be possible for clients to do the basic bookkeeping but so many try to take short cuts and get it wrong. They think they can work out VAT on a payment by taking 20% of the payment. They won't look at the documentation because it's too much of an effort.

The big difference with auto enrolment and accounting is that auto enrolment can be done in simple steps if you follow the instructions. With even simple accounting there's times you need to know something and only an accountant or bookkeeper will realise.

I accept it may be difficult to get the best pension provider but I wonder whether even IFAs can do that.

Thanks (0)
By Ian Batterbee
26th Sep 2014 21:54

Interesting comments Peter
So you say no one will follow their VAT guidelines because they can't be bothered, yet they will take the time to follow the steps to do AE?

Why would they do one, and yet employ someone to do the other?

The point that Stephen was making earlier has been proven on this very thread.........the definition of a worker is pretty simple, and the exemptions likewise, right?

If an employer, or accountant tells me they think they can do it themselves, I'll wish them good luck and speak to the next client that will value my experience and knowledge.

As a footnote "getting the best pension scheme" will soon be a moot point. There is a capacity crunch racing toward us and most insurers aren't interested in a lot of schemes.

As I said before, the pension plan is a smallish part of the process.

Thanks (0)
Replying to leshoward:
By petersaxton
26th Sep 2014 22:05

That's not what I said

Ian Batterbee wrote:
So you say no one will follow their VAT guidelines because they can't be bothered, yet they will take the time to follow the steps to do AE? Why would they do one, and yet employ someone to do the other?

Where did I say that no one will follow VAT guidelines?

The people who try to do their own bookkeeping don't usually read and understand everything they need to know. They will read a small part and think that is sufficient.

The AE steps are supposedly set out in an easy to follow list. Despite this, it is sensible to do it as part of the payroll so that is how it is done.

Thanks (1)
By Ian Batterbee
27th Sep 2014 10:03

Blimey Peter
For a man who likes attention to specifics, you seem to be missing a large part of your own point.

I'll try again to join the dots.

You've said that "some" people won't read the rules relating to VAT and apply them properly, even though they should do, as part of their book keeping duties.

In the same post you've said "auto enrolment can be done in easy steps if you follow the instructions".

Why would someone unable/unwilling/incapable of following book keeping/VAT guidelines be any better at following AE guidelines?

You're very words "they will read a small part and think it's sufficient" ring as true in the AE world as payroll/accountancy.

Out of interest, given your comments regarding the "supposedly easy steps" how many companies have you helped to stage?

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By chatman
27th Sep 2014 10:31

VAT is quite complicated Ian

Ian Batterbee wrote:
Why would someone unable/unwilling/incapable of following book keeping/VAT guidelines be any better at following AE guidelines?

Because VAT can be incredibly complicated Ian, and although bookkeeping is not that difficult, it is a skill that needs to be learnt. No-one is claiming that AE is easy, simply that it is not the rocket science that some, who charge high fees for their services, seem to be claiming.

"Beyond the everyday world … lies the world of VAT; a kind of fiscal theme park in which factual and legal realities are suspended and inverted."

 - Lord Justice Sedley

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
By petersaxton
27th Sep 2014 11:54

Complex

Ian Batterbee wrote:
I worked very closely with an accountant, so I appreciate how complex VAT (and other taxation matters) can be. I genuinely think that you guys are underestimating the process. Hopefully I'm wrong, and you find it as simple as you think it is.

You say you appreciate how complex VAT is. So is VAT more or less complex than AE?

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnhemming:
avatar
By chatman
27th Sep 2014 10:41

Ad hominem

Ian Batterbee wrote:
how many companies have you helped to stage?

Ad hominen attacks are not considered to be valid in a debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Thanks (0)
Replying to Francois Badenhorst:
By Ian Batterbee
27th Sep 2014 11:37

Ad hominem attacks

chatman wrote:

Ian Batterbee wrote:
how many companies have you helped to stage?

Ad hominen attacks are not considered to be valid in a debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Thanks for the wiki link.

So of I were to say "VAT is simple" and someone asked how many VAT returns I've done, that would be an attack?

I've posted on here at the request of another person, tried to point out what you're getting involved in, and generally offered some guidance.

The response from most seems to be "it's straightforward, so why would we need help".

That is of course before anyone has any experience of the process!

As I said to Peter, good luck with staging your clients.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By petersaxton
27th Sep 2014 11:50

Bookkeeping v AE

Ian Batterbee wrote:
chatman wrote:

Ian Batterbee wrote:
how many companies have you helped to stage?

Ad hominen attacks are not considered to be valid in a debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Thanks for the wiki link. So of I were to say "VAT is simple" and someone asked how many VAT returns I've done, that would be an attack? I've posted on here at the request of another person, tried to point out what you're getting involved in, and generally offered some guidance. The response from most seems to be "it's straightforward, so why would we need help". That is of course before anyone has any experience of the process! As I said to Peter, good luck with staging your clients.

It may be an attempt to get some information to progress the argument or it may be thought of as a killer point that "proves" you are right.

Just because somebody produces 1, 10, 100 or 1,000 VAT returns doesn't mean they are doing it right.

I think the difference that I see between bookkeeping and AE is that if you follow a list of procedures you should be able to get it right - as long as you are aware of what problems there could be.

Bookkeeping is a lot more than a list of procedures - thousands of issues could be relevant at any stage.

Thanks (0)
By Ian Batterbee
27th Sep 2014 10:21

To all you accountants out there.
There is a thread on the linked in page for Pensions Auto Enrolment (I've tried to post the link, but I can't make it work).

The most overwhelming message being received by advisers (IFA/Unregulated/EBC and others) is that "my accountant will sort it out".

In a number of cases, the clients accountants response was either "no I'm not" or a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter "we will just do it through payroll" being a good one.

There is also a reluctance to get involved with the IFA/AE community, the main reasons being:

Fear over commission (which was banned two years ago)

Potential client poaching (if you don't engage with your clients, and an IFA does, he's almost certainly going to intro them to a friendly accountant)

Perceived lack of professionalism/qualifications, I think this is well covered already, and I agree, not all IFAs understand AE.

Any adviser worth speaking to will want to help you engage, and earn you kudos with your clients, not rip them off, flog them a dodgy pension, and introduce them to his mate.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
27th Sep 2014 10:38

Two-director-no-staff companies

I like your thinking Peter. If one director is not caught, then why would two be? I read an article explaining why the author thought a single director would not be caught. I will try and find it.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
27th Sep 2014 11:01

What is more complicated?

<<<You've said that "some" people won't read the rules relating to VAT and apply them properly, even though they should do, as part of their book keeping duties.

In the same post you've said "auto enrolment can be done in easy steps if you follow the instructions".

Why would someone unable/unwilling/incapable of following book keeping/VAT guidelines be any better at following AE guidelines?>>>

The AE guidelines are listed in plenty of places. How to do bookkeeping for a particular business is too complex and variable depending on the business to reduce to simple steps.

<<<You're very words "they will read a small part and think it's sufficient" ring as true in the AE world as payroll/accountancy.>>>

No they don’t. There are less complexities and variables in AE.

<<<Out of interest, given your comments regarding the "supposedly easy steps" how many companies have you helped to stage?>>>

None. Is that relevant given there is plenty of advice on how it can be done which appears to show it is relatively straightforward with a little investigation?

Thanks (0)
By Ian Batterbee
27th Sep 2014 11:30

Good luck guys
Fair enough Peter.

You, having never staged anyone, thinks it's "relatively straightforward", I beg to differ.

This is your forum, I'm just an invited interloper, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Good luck with helping your clients stage.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By petersaxton
27th Sep 2014 11:43

Complications?

Ian Batterbee wrote:
Fair enough Peter. You, having never staged anyone, thinks it's "relatively straightforward", I beg to differ. This is your forum, I'm just an invited interloper, so we will just have to agree to disagree. Good luck with helping your clients stage.

Ian, can you explain what some of the complications are?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
By Ian Batterbee
27th Sep 2014 12:07

Complications

petersaxton wrote:

Ian Batterbee wrote:
Fair enough Peter. You, having never staged anyone, thinks it's "relatively straightforward", I beg to differ. This is your forum, I'm just an invited interloper, so we will just have to agree to disagree. Good luck with helping your clients stage.

Ian, can you explain what some of the complications are?

Certainly Peter - I've dropped you a PM too.

The biggest issue is data.

Incorrect formatting of spreadsheets, compatibility with pension provider systems, and general human input mistakes all cause issues.

You've got decisions to make surrounding definition of earnings, getting this right could save the company money, or lose staff goodwill.

Will you postpone? How will you communicate? Who will deal
With opt in/outs at your office?

How will you select the pension provider?

One of the biggest issues is that many clients think that their current pension scheme will "do it". It almost certainly won't, something will most likely need to be tweaked.

Presumably you are planning to run payroll for your companies and do the ongoing monthly/weekly reporting? That gives you a head start over us, who are relying on the payroll manager to give us details (which are often incomplete).

The communications issue is another one, as I've identified, unless you wish to do it all
Manually (and keep those records) you'll want some "middleware" which comes with it's own challenges - and costs.

Bear in mind Peter that my experiences are with employers of 100-2000 employees, I imagine that with companies of maybe 1-25 the accountant has much of this detail in their system and can access it more easily than a payroll department/manager, although you'd expect companies of that size to be better organised than evidence suggests that they are.

Repopulating a 2000 entry spreadsheet needing 43 inputs is much less likely to happen than a 5 person payroll being updated manually.

I've got more specifics as mentioned in pm.

Hope that's of some use.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
27th Sep 2014 11:40

Accountants and IFAs

<<<The most overwhelming message being received by advisers (IFA/Unregulated/EBC and others) is that "my accountant will sort it out".>>>

We will.

<<<In a number of cases, the clients accountants response was either "no I'm not" or a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter "we will just do it through payroll" being a good one.>>>

I would suggest that the accountant’s response was I will sort it out but not yet.

The accountant will do it through payroll but I agree that accountants don’t understand AE well – yet.

<<<There is also a reluctance to get involved with the IFA/AE community, the main reasons being:

Fear over commission (which was banned two years ago)>>>

I think that accountants think that fees – not commission – will be too high for what employers will get in return.

<<<Potential client poaching (if you don't engage with your clients, and an IFA does, he's almost certainly going to intro them to a friendly accountant)>>>

I don’t think this is a fear that many accountants have.

<<<Perceived lack of professionalism/qualifications, I think this is well covered already, and I agree, not all IFAs understand AE.

Any adviser worth speaking to will want to help you engage, and earn you kudos with your clients, not rip them off, flog them a dodgy pension, and introduce them to his mate.>>>

I don’t understand the need for IFAs. This is mainly due to the confusion between employers and employees – who is the IFA helping and how?

Thanks (0)
By Ian Batterbee
27th Sep 2014 11:47

"We will"
I'll admit it, I can't resist.

What, specifically, will you sort out?

That's the real question, gents.

Thanks (0)
Replying to clark.hall:
By petersaxton
27th Sep 2014 11:53

Clients needs

Ian Batterbee wrote:
I'll admit it, I can't resist. What, specifically, will you sort out? That's the real question, gents.

The clients need somebody to deal with AE and I suggest the accountants will deal with it.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
27th Sep 2014 12:36

Large or small

<<<The biggest issue is data.

Incorrect formatting of spreadsheets, compatibility with pension provider systems, and general human input mistakes all cause issues.

You've got decisions to make surrounding definition of earnings, getting this right could save the company money, or lose staff goodwill.

Will you postpone? How will you communicate? Who will deal

With opt in/outs at your office?>>>

I use payroll software and the issues seem very straightforward and easy to deal with except the pension provider systems but they can be overcome.

<<<How will you select the pension provider?>>>

This is a concern if I am not allowed to make a suggestion. I could direct my clients to a website for them to decide.

<<<One of the biggest issues is that many clients think that their current pension scheme will "do it". It almost certainly won't, something will most likely need to be tweaked.>>>

None of my clients have pension schemes. I would suggest if an employer has a pension scheme they will be able to find out what needs to be done even if they will need advice from an IFA.

<<<Presumably you are planning to run payroll for your companies and do the ongoing monthly/weekly reporting? That gives you a head start over us, who are relying on the payroll manager to give us details (which are often incomplete).>>>

Yes

<<<The communications issue is another one, as I've identified, unless you wish to do it all>>>

Both the software I use now and am considering would do all the communications.

<<<Manually (and keep those records) you'll want some "middleware" which comes with it's own challenges - and costs.>>>

I would never do even simple payroll manually.

<<<Bear in mind Peter that my experiences are with employers of 100-2000 employees, I imagine that with companies of maybe 1-25 the accountant has much of this detail in their system and can access it more easily than a payroll department/manager, although you'd expect companies of that size to be better organised than evidence suggests that they are.>>>

My employers are very small.

<<<Repopulating a 2000 entry spreadsheet needing 43 inputs is much less likely to happen than a 5 person payroll being updated manually.>>>

I would use software for a 5 person payroll and they would be one of my bigger payrolls.

I accept that my payrolls are very small and nothing like the payrolls you deal with. I would assume that my payrolls would be exempt or have 100% opt outs. I certainly hope so! But I will still need to be ready to deal with a new client who needs or uses AE.

Thanks (0)

Pages