Share this content

Firms that should lose their practising certificat

Dodgy firms

Didn't find your answer?

I have just done a company search on a potential client. The company filed 2015 abbreviated accounts that were identical to the 2014 accounts probably to meet the filing deadline. They then filed amended accounts that were completely different without any disclosures in the accounts explaining the amendments.

The company then did exactly the same thing again by filing the 2016 accounts which are identical to the 2015 accounts.

All 3 sets of accounts show an ACCA firm as the company's accountants. Surely such firms should lose their practising certificates? I would report them to the ACCA if there was an easy way to do it.

End of rant!

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Tim Vane
10th May 2017 23:22

Are you sure that the accounts filed after 2014 were not just filed by the company after cutting and pasting the prior year accounts and without any input from the original accountant? I would be treating this prospect with a great deal of suspicion at this point.

Thanks (0)
By mrme89
11th May 2017 08:04

Lose their PC and the next day continue trading as an accountant without a professional body. Unless they are auditors, losing their PC is not a deterrent.

Thanks (0)
Maytuna
By DJKL
11th May 2017 09:21

Given they obviously struggle to get the books from their client, hence not submitting correctly on time, you are possibly missing the bigger question: would you actually want this client?

Thanks (2)
RLI
By lionofludesch
11th May 2017 09:36

Agree with Tim.

The accountants have no need to add their name to the accounts. Why would they want to be associated with obviously incorrect accounts?

One wonders whether they submitted these accounts at all.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
AS
By AS
11th May 2017 10:27

I now have confirmation that the accounts were prepared and filed by the accountant. He does the bookkeeping as well but struggles to get information from the client.

It was stupid of him to add the firm's name to the accounts.

I have decided not to take on this client.

Thanks (0)
Replying to AS:
RLI
By lionofludesch
11th May 2017 10:54

Very wise.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Chris Mann
11th May 2017 13:34

"All 3 sets of accounts show an ACCA firm as the company's accountants. Surely such firms should lose their practising certificates? I would report them to the ACCA if there was an easy way to do it".

"I now have confirmation that the accounts were prepared and filed by the accountant. He does the bookkeeping as well but struggles to get information from the client".

Presumably you've realised that you should have counted to ten, initially? Given the confirmation I presume that you do not intend to report this individual? Usually, there are two sides to every story.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Chris Mann:
RLI
By lionofludesch
11th May 2017 13:51

To be fair, I don't think it's appropriate to submit any old numbers to CoHo just to save a £150 penalty.

Changing the ARD or just telling the client he's got a £150 penalty because he's too slow to bring his books in would seem more appropriate courses of action.

Would I report the accountant? Probably not. But he could do with an arm round his shoulder and a few words of advice.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Chris Mann
11th May 2017 14:09

Couldn't agree more. I'm certainly not condoning; submitting estimates/subsequent amendments or indeed any obviously incorrect figures to Companies House, or elsewhere. If any of my client's are late, they are left in no doubt that they will be making good the late filing penalty.

However, what I am saying is - none of us know all the answers and, we all do what we consider to be right, given the circumstances which persist at that time.

Taking the moral high-ground and to consider reporting a fellow professional, in my view, should not be entered into lightly. You really do need to have considered all aspects prior to such a course of action. The consequences, in ignoring factual evidence could be quite serious.

Thanks (0)
Share this content