Client asking us to reduce fee!

Is this not seriously undervaluing the profession?

Didn't find your answer?

We are ICAEW and I have had a new client approach us asking for a price. They have a quote from another ICAEW firm, for a set of limited company accounts with associated CT600 and companies house filing, they have been quoted £150 all in and wanted us to do it cheaper!

Is that not seriously low or am i overcharging. My fees for a ltd co annual set of accounts and return is much more than this.

The client has sent me the email from the other accountant and it confirms they just need the trial balance download and the fee.

Do people not bother checking the figures and making sure things like the bank balances are correct?

Just thought i would get other peoples opinions on this because it seems to me that ICAEW accountant must just be taking their figures and creating the accounts. I could do hundreds of them a day if that was the case so maybe I should look at my own business model if we don't actually need to have accurate figures in the accounts :-/

Replies (53)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

the sea otter
By memyself-eye
29th Apr 2019 13:45

Just say thanks, but no thanks. That fee is far too low.

Thanks (1)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
29th Apr 2019 13:46

Its a reasonable price to convert a short TB into accounts on a "look no hands ma" basis.

Its not a reasonable price to check they are right which is after all 90%+ of the job.

Correction response would be "Assuming they have missed a zero, then XYZ, otherwise I cant help you"

Thanks (5)
Red Leader
By Red Leader
29th Apr 2019 13:52

Not worth getting involved for that. I think I would charge more for a dormant!

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Matrix
29th Apr 2019 14:07

Yes that fee and the request is seriously undervaluing the profession.

That would be my minimum onboarding cost for year 1 before I had even looked at the numbers. So I would be running at a loss.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Kaylee100
29th Apr 2019 14:17

Bet its £150 per month!

Our cheapest non-dormant is about £550 plus VAT (has a few contracts a year) but most are higher and the post above saying add a zero, puts it about right with our average. We would never do just from TB - always a bit of work to do even on our clients that have pukker bookkeepers (where we still use the year end to tidy stuff up, like write offs and assets obsolescence as well as taxes provision).

Thanks (4)
boat
By SouthCoastAcc
29th Apr 2019 14:16

It doesnt sound like they are not the client for you, we have had a few of these and never try to "win" them.

We all know the bookkeeping is poorly done 9 times out of 10.

Even if they do the bookkeeping our charges start around £850.

Edit: I assumed £150 a month at the start

Thanks (3)
avatar
By andy.partridge
29th Apr 2019 14:27

What a rip off.

I've started paying clients for the privilege of working with them. If any of them quibble about the quality I just say, 'Well, you get what you pay for."

Thanks (5)
Replying to andy.partridge:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
29th Apr 2019 15:35

"I've started paying clients for the privilege of working with them"

Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down office, and pay clients for permission to do their accounts, and when I got home.......

Thanks (4)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By andy.partridge
29th Apr 2019 15:42

You had it easy . . .

Thanks (4)
RLI
By lionofludesch
29th Apr 2019 15:35

They need to look at the quality of the work they're getting for their money.

The client is obviously going to be a whinger, may as well disengage now.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By SXGuy
29th Apr 2019 16:24

The other day someone said to me that a friends accountant said they would charge half what I'm charging. I said great go see his accountant instead then.

Which was shortly followed by, no no I'm quire happy where I am thanx.

Sometimes you just have to explain that it's simply not worth your time doing a job for such a small fee and if they client wishes to to elsewhere feel free to.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By 2003bluecat
29th Apr 2019 16:51

Was the email forwarded to you? I've known people to "edit" emails prior to sending them on in the past.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Accountant A
29th Apr 2019 17:06

Quote:

Is this not seriously undervaluing the profession?

We know from the freeloaders who are now the main users of Any Answers that they think the value is nil - so yes, the profession has a very serious problem.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Accountant A:
avatar
By FD4CAST FD4CAST
03rd May 2019 10:31

Always moaning about "freeloaders".

Why don't you request AWEB to simply remove this section from their website?

You'll probably find that other accountants successfully use this section to generate new business. You have my sincere apologies that this method doesn't seem to work for you, but then again no one likes a whinger.

Thanks (1)
Replying to saltimbamba:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
03rd May 2019 10:57

Quote:

Always moaning about "freeloaders".

Why don't you request AWEB to simply remove this section from their website?

This section of the website is useful, when it is used as stated in the site description. Historically this was an extremely valuable of source of knowledge, with very few seeking a freebie.

Sadly AccountingWeb seem to have down the route that all clicks are good clicks, regardless of quality. A valuable resource has therefore been severely compromised.

Quote:
You have my sincere apologies that this method doesn't seem to work for you, but then again no one likes a whinger.

Because your post is not doing exactly the same thing, just starting from a different viewpoint?
Thanks (1)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By FD4CAST FD4CAST
07th May 2019 11:09

Not at all. If you are going to be riled by someone simply asking a question, you could instead simply pass, ignore, give it a stiff kicking into the long grass, move on to the next question, etc.

They would soon get the message once no one answers their question.

Instead, you choose to continue to moan about freeloaders and suggest that the industry has a 'very serious problem'.

Ridiculous. If that is the biggest challenge facing the accounting profession then you need to seriously get a sense of perspective.

Simply ignore these people who ask questions expecting free advice. They are not a 'very serious problem' and don't try and tell me that this is a 'very serious problem' confined solely to accountants.

"Sadly AccountingWeb seem to have down the route that all clicks are good clicks, regardless of quality."

Are you saying that a quality moderator is required?

Ask AWEB what their views would be on that one.

I think you need to understand the AWEB business model. They are not here to help you, they are here to sell advertising. Start from that viewpoint and you may get the right perspective. No one likes a whinger.

Thanks (2)
Replying to saltimbamba:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
07th May 2019 08:57

Quote:
No one likes a whinger.
Yet here you are, still whinging about how others choose to respond.

This is a FREE forum. How others choose to respond is Sift's business, not yours.

You could take your own advice and move on when you see a response you don't like. Why are you not doing that?

As for the AWEB business model, I would point out that the advertising they sell is almost exclusively aimed at accountants. If that target audience is driven away by how the site operates, is that not a flawed business model? Maybe it is you that needs a new viewpoint.

Thanks (1)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By FD4CAST FD4CAST
07th May 2019 09:45

Nurse...he's out of bed again!

Thanks (1)
Replying to saltimbamba:
RLI
By lionofludesch
07th May 2019 09:52

Quote:

Nurse...he's out of bed again!

Nobody likes a tout, James.

Thanks (0)
Replying to saltimbamba:
avatar
By Matrix
03rd May 2019 11:55

James - Accountant A does not work in practice and those of us who do would not want the freeloaders as clients.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Mr_awol
29th Apr 2019 17:15

Got to be honest, I've had 'filing only' arrangements - stick their accs into stat format and/or pop in a CT600 - and charged more than £500 plus VAT. I'd probably do a dormant (AA-whatever-a-DCA-is-these-days) for £150 as long as it was inactive for CT purposes.

But, as I keep saying, accountancy is going that way. Inaccurate accounts, straight off of cloud software imported from a bank feed, charged on a bronze/silver/gold 'subscription' is the future of accountancy - especially if previously reputable firms keep getting sucked into the model.

Then again, maybe it really is a case of if you cant beat them join them.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr_awol:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
29th Apr 2019 21:21

"Then again, maybe it really is a case of if you cant beat them join them."

Never, if we do not do the job professionally then we are not professionals.

Now this is possibly easy for me to say, I am bowing out (of the profession, not accountancy), but money would not compensate me for feeling somewhat sordid churning out unchecked junk. Accounts I prepare may not be perfect but they are as close to perfect as I can get them to be from the records provided ,and have always been since I first started in August 1985.

Thanks (2)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Mr_awol
30th Apr 2019 10:30

Quote:

"Then again, maybe it really is a case of if you cant beat them join them."

Never, if we do not do the job professionally then we are not professionals.

Now this is possibly easy for me to say, I am bowing out (of the profession, not accountancy), but money would not compensate me for feeling somewhat sordid churning out unchecked junk. Accounts I prepare may not be perfect but they are as close to perfect as I can get them to be from the records provided ,and have always been since I first started in August 1985.

I'm entirely with you there - and our continued growth over recent years suggests that this is still achievable. However I do sometime wonder if the 'modern, progressive' (code for slap-dash) firms will instigate a race to the bottom on fees and force genuine professionals out of the market.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Mr_awol:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
30th Apr 2019 11:30

There have always been accountant's with spur marks on their mounts, there were a fair few local to us in the 1980s when I started out in smaller practice work in Edinburgh (when we "won" clients from them we knew what to expect re "opening corrections"), what I currently observe , without any scientific approach to same, is there appears to be more of them these days and they have managed to achieve market penetration into servicing larger clients where there are likely more possibilities for them to get thinks wrong.

If one can categorise clients as being in fee bands say :

1. < £600
2. £600-£1,000
3. £1,000-£2,500
4. £2,500-£5,000
5 > £5,000

the "wild bunch" are no longer content with making an [***] of the books of categories 1 and 2 but are picking up clients in the 4-5 categories, that to me is the worrying trend, they are no longer mere bottom feeders.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Mr_awol
03rd May 2019 12:48

I think the problems are twofold:
1) There is a larger influx of cowboys, or IT bods without accounting experience, coming into the market
2) Some genuine, professional, established, forms are watering down their standards.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr_awol:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
03rd May 2019 13:02

Re the former I agree, re the latter I made the point on another thread that accountants these days, not having audit backgrounds re smaller companies ,has I think left a lot of firms with poor files and checking systems.

In audit the file is everything and that approach spilled out to the non incorporated clients working papers, all accounts firm filing systems/lead schedules etc, the loss of audit work looks to me to be one of the reasons for the slide.

I always took comfort that if I got the balance sheet right (and complete) the profit would be correct, albeit analysis needed work re checks on allocations, but if one does not prepare schedules with reconciliations re cash,bank, net pay, PAYE/NI, vat and where systems allow debtors and creditors ledgers, you are building on sand and the garbage that spews out the end is worse than useless.

Thanks (2)
Replying to DJKL:
By coolmanwithbeard
06th May 2019 07:10

This my thinking too I have to be happy with the BS entries. This can mean digging down into the data. If we report debtors then we need to be happy there is at least a reasonable chance the client will get that in and often when I ask about old debtors I get "Oh they paid" or "won't get that now". I have a client where they run all that on one cloud system and the company feeds it into the accounts. I am the gatekeeper and checker for that - no one else checks.

If we don't do this eventually it all falls over somewhere as debtors and creditors rise unchecked. We have all picked up clients where this is a mess or there are 35 debtors owing 4p or less - not material (possibly) professional pride - Oh yes - and the client likes that the list returns to manageability.

Thanks (0)
Img
By MissAccounting
30th Apr 2019 09:32

Have you seen the quote? Not even an outsourced sweatshop would do it for £150 a year. Got to be the monthly fee or they are trying it on.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Kaylee100
30th Apr 2019 09:48

I have a funny story about reduced fees. I once had a client leave me for a cheap fee (£500, we were about £1000).

He was pretty good at keeping his records but every year we found a few things, as you do, and every year we had a meeting where he would grill me in detail about what changes I had made and why as he thought he had done it right. Nice guy, one of those that really keeps you on your toes, I was sorry to lose him.

Anyway, a year later, he returned ...... he was very very miffed that the new accountant just took his figures and didn't change them!

I was very grateful he came back as most wouldn't in that circumstance.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By bernard michael
30th Apr 2019 10:04

Have you missed a £0 in your post?
I'd tell the client to accept the offer and **** off

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bernard michael
30th Apr 2019 10:05

They're also preparing the CT600 and filing @ Cos House

Thanks (0)
avatar
By David Gordon FCCA
03rd May 2019 10:34

You should get the client to obtain a signed fixed price quotation from that firm. Making sure that the quotation really includes all necessary work. |Help the client obtain this.
Then agree with the client to help him monitor the situation.
If it is for real (There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden) You then sub out your clients to these guys and charge a bit on top for yourself to your clients.
Easy peasy.
If, strangely, it turns out to be horse-feathers, you will gain a new client at real fees, who appreciates you ethical stance.
Good Luck

Thanks (0)
avatar
By why always me
03rd May 2019 10:49

The £150 sounds ridiculous. I would wish them well and advise that 'if' it does not work out, you would welcome them back.
I always try and give fair price, if client not happy would prefer they went elsewhere. Life is demanding enough without arguing over £100 here and there

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Ammie
03rd May 2019 10:53

Bye Bye! Au Revoir! Adios! Arrivederci! Auf Wiedersehen!

(Not sue how you would say "you are joking!")

On a more serious note, I have no doubt this client is "playing you", I wouldn't take delivery of the company's records for that. On the basis of the clients audacity I would expect a difficult relationship from the off, so best not go there.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Ben Alligin
03rd May 2019 11:01

I took on a new client from a previous ICAEW 'accountant' who just took the figures provided by the client, no questions asked. When I received his last prepared accounts and TB, I couldn't reconcile half the figures, so I thought I would start with the basics. The difference between his closing bank reconciliation and my opening balances was wildly different - the reason, he had only 1 bank account, I had 2 bank accounts for the company!

So I dropped them an email asking why they hadn't reconciled the 2 company bank accounts, and more to the point why hadn't they even reconciled properly the bank account showing on their TB? Answer, 'that's all the client gave me'. Well that was true for me, but when you came across inter-company transfers, that rather gave you the clue that there were other company bank accounts present. I asked the client and lo and behold the extra bank statements for the missing account were provided, although the client did ask why I needed them, since their previous accountant had never needed them!!!!

We ended up involving our glorious Institute, who sided with incompetent accountant No 1, justification from the ICAEW was that the client hadn't provided all the bank statement, so the fault lay entirely with the client. In their words, accountant No 1 had done nothing wrong.

Clearly the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. Surprised I wasn't struck off for the temerity of trying to get the correct figures in the accounts!

Thanks (3)
Replying to Ben Alligin:
avatar
By Matrix
03rd May 2019 11:13

Shocking. But good to know we can leave things out if the client doesn’t provide them.

I just had a terrible handover from an ICAEW firm and thought I was nearly there (using Xero and the bank and VAT returns didn’t agree to the accounts/VAT returns, how hard can it be?) and have just found £2k randomly booked to deferred tax for no reason whatsoever, looks like a trainee just fancied that account and there was no review. I won’t report them after your experience and just too busy.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Ben Alligin:
Caroline
By accountantccole
03rd May 2019 12:08

We're dealing with one of these currently. £60k balancing bank figure posted to creditors - no one knows what it is...….having to back track to try to unravel it all

Thanks (0)
Replying to accountantccole:
avatar
By Matrix
03rd May 2019 12:43

Oh no! Mine nets out to £1k after including the difference on the bank and the deferred tax reversal. But not finished yet.

At least if they had paid £150 to a non-qual then you would say you get what you pay for.

Thanks (0)
Replying to accountantccole:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
03rd May 2019 12:51

£60k bank differences are a doddle to find, it is the 17p ones that are a nightmare.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd May 2019 13:25

No - it's the ones for a £1. Much easier to check the pence than a figure in the middle of an amount.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
06th May 2019 11:20

True, or those divisible by nine as the eye sees what it wants to see.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Robin Wishart
03rd May 2019 11:22

If there's a UK firm of Chartered Accountants willing and able to do Limited Company Accounts plus CT600 all for £150, let me know who they are - I might take them on as sub-contractors.
I suspect there may be a catch - eg: "from £150" for Dormant companies

Thanks (2)
Flag of the Soviet Union
By thevaliant
03rd May 2019 12:12

My view, as accountants, has always been that there are three types of accounts production that a firm could go for.

The first is the accounts with an Assurance Report, which has been around for years but which I've never seen in practice. A mini-audit if you like. I would expect the accounts produced to be pretty robust, but costs a pretty packet if a firm takes this option up.

The second, which is what we offer, is full accounts production and a look at the whole balance sheet. We might not test debtor receipts, but if the debtor is dated 1986, we'll challenge recoverability etc etc. We'd never charge less than a couple of grand for this.

The third, which we've seen but never offer, is the £150 a year jobbie. You give us the TB. We put it into our accounts production software and we'll file it. Trade debtors a credit balance? Trade creditors a debit balance? Don't care, shove it in.

You can do the latter for £150.

Thanks (0)
Replying to thevaliant:
avatar
By andy.partridge
03rd May 2019 13:18

"You can do the latter for £150."

I've heard an accountant justify it on the basis that directors have responsibilities that they are ignoring - eg. lack of investment in the accounting function, finance functions carried out by untrained staff, little or no review of output, generally not bothered if it's right or wrong. Not crooked as such, just making compliance a very low priority.

Apparently it's a large and growing market.

Thanks (0)
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
03rd May 2019 13:35

I guess that if I spent less time on this and other forums and more time doing something productive I could afford to reduce my fees!

But £150 cannot be right - it’s either per month or there is a missing “0”

Thanks (0)
Slim
By Slim
03rd May 2019 15:26

Talking of undervaluing the profession.

I had a client who wanted advise on how to structure and move forward with a £25m development, it was a very complicated set up with large sums of money involved.

I quoted them £800, and they came back and said it was too much! It was the bargain of a lifetime, and I'm quite glad they didn't accept as I should have quoted triple the price.

I did think they are going to get a shock when they see architects fees.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Slim:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
06th May 2019 11:25

Architect-Someone who wins awards with his client's money.

Of all the self serving professions I have come across in my work architects are number one (Not too keen on people in marketing either)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By sash100
04th May 2019 00:41

Perhaps the accountant is low balling and maybe sent you the email from the accountant but deceptively took off the zero.

Anyway, I can believe this would be happening as there accountants that send the data to india and comes back in an hour without any checks. If you can earn £140 (less a £10 an hour from employing someone in India) in an hour then its not too bad.

They have a a very efficient process and you will be surprised how quickly they can manipulate data into a Trial Balance which is uploaded into Accounts Production and CT600. Once the TB is set will take only a couple of clicks.

If he is indeed offering £150 or this happens again then you may want to make it clear to them what they maybe getting in return. In fact I would just point it out to them if they want that kind of service then they could file themselves easily enough at zero cost. Also mention a decent accountant will offer detailed checks and advice which could result in lower taxes and perhaps costs as well so you could end up in saving him money instead.

The cheap accountant objective is get the client at all costs then add further services like self assessment, payroll at a higher cost than the norm, More services and advice can be added later now and future years. It could end up being worthwhile especially if this particularly client grows

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dmmarler
04th May 2019 09:35

Isn't it about time the profession as a whole took a view on what constitutes an accountancy service? It does not serve us well that professional bodies sit on their hands and seemingly permit their members just to download some rubbish and put it through a software sieve to manufacture statutory accounts and a corporation tax return, and pass off these bargain basement accounts as the real deal.

Thanks (0)
By tonyaustin
06th May 2019 12:49

A fictitious firm of accountants ask for a trial balance. A junior member of staff posts that, without checking it, into a computer accounts package which produces an online set of accounts, tax computation and CT600, these are sent to the client for approval and filed online. This takes maybe a couple of hours. Yes, operating in this way lowers professional standards and producing incorrect accounts lowers the profession's reputation with HMRC but if all the accountants are asked to do is produce accounts etc. based on information given...maybe all limited company accounts should be audited or maybe MTD will improve things eventually. Maybe the firm charges more for checking the figures and putting them right if HMRC open an enquiry.

Thanks (0)

Pages