Can I replace my FRS105 accounts with FRS102

Didn't find your answer?

I recently signed off accounts to be submitted under FRS 102. At the time I didn't know there was another option, because these were the only accounts sent to me by my accountant. I since found out  by accident that they could have been submitted under FRS 105, which would have resulted in less information being publicly disclosed. FRS 105 is preferable.

When I raised it with my accountant they said it was my responsiblity to tell them if I wanted to submit it under FRS 105.

I have since stopped using the old accountant. But I wanted to ask

a) has the accountant breached any rules by not telling me that I could have submitted them under FRS 105?

b) is there any point trying to get them resubmitted under FRS 105? Would the original accounts not remain on the public record?

Replies (14)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
20th Jul 2022 20:40

You had cr4p accountants
Too late as the accounts are there forever
Complain to the accounting body that they are members of and claim on their PII. They deserve it
Chances are your accounts fee was cheap and no partner involved in the process. What else did they miss?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By User deleted
20th Jul 2022 20:52

Yes I agree they were crap. But they were not cheap at all.

What would benefit would come of complaining to the accounting body? And what could I actually claim on their PII? I don't think I have actually experienced any losses as a result of them advising me about my choice?

Thanks (0)
Replying to User deleted:
RLI
By lionofludesch
20th Jul 2022 22:16

Frod011 wrote:

Yes I agree they were crap. But they were not cheap at all.

What would benefit would come of complaining to the accounting body? And what could I actually claim on their PII? I don't think I have actually experienced any losses as a result of them advising me about my choice?

If there are no losses, what are you going to claim as damages?

No, the accountants haven't broken any rules, though I would have asked you what you wanted to file.

Yes, you're right - the FRS102 accounts will still be on file so whatever you're trying to hide will still be visible.

Thanks (1)
Replying to User deleted:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
21st Jul 2022 15:28

Competitors, clients, staff and ex spouse know just so much more than they need to know.
I would not expect the average trader to the various rules
The accountant should, and historically Accounts exams required a knowledge of minimum legal disclosure.
Disclosing everything that is stated in the question would get a very low mark.
If accountant defaults to full disclosure in the public domain and does not discuss the existence of micro accounts then,in my opinion, loss could result

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
21st Jul 2022 16:15

In mine, hugely unlikely and almost impossible to prove even if there was.

What I love about this article https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/financial-reporting/frs-102-vs-... is the little islander responses - "nothing in the article is relevant to my clients therefore nothing in the article is relevant to any business".

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wanderer
20th Jul 2022 20:42

a) No
b) i No
b) ii No, they would remain on the public record.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By David Ex
20th Jul 2022 22:38

Two weeks ago, you said “I recently switched my business from sole trade to limited company” so struggling to understand why you are filing company accounts so soon.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Matrix
20th Jul 2022 22:47

The Director loan would still be disclosed under FRS105, if that is your concern.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Leywood
21st Jul 2022 09:19

Did you really submit the accounts yourself using hmrc’s own software? As it’s obvious from other filings that they allow for a complete overkill of information showing at co house.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Leywood:
RLI
By lionofludesch
21st Jul 2022 09:33

Leywood wrote:

Did you really submit the accounts yourself using hmrc’s own software?

It's not what he says.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Leywood
21st Jul 2022 09:50

True, but we have seen such in the past so I thought it was worth the Q, especially with such concern over over-disclosure.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Leywood:
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
21st Jul 2022 10:57

I believe the OP, I see it all the time (in fact, it’s usually in my sales pitch).

Thanks (0)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
21st Jul 2022 15:18

You are not the only one.
The less good people think more pages justify a higher fee.
One such is a local firm of 2 lady bookkeepers
They even did FRS 102 on their own accounts. The details they entered wee clearly inaccurate as they were also on the job I took over

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
Img
By MissAccounting
22nd Jul 2022 09:16

Paul Crowley wrote:

You are not the only one.
The less good people think more pages justify a higher fee.
One such is a local firm of 2 lady bookkeepers
They even did FRS 102 on their own accounts. The details they entered wee clearly inaccurate as they were also on the job I took over

I was just about to post the same thing! 2 decent size firms local to me always produce 105 accounts regardless of size! Seems more and more firms are turning into sausage factories that are only interested in pushing advisory work to clients!

Thanks (0)