Rogue Accountant

Rogue Accountant

Didn't find your answer?

Hi

I have recently taken on a new Ltd Co client and I wrote to the previous Accountant for the standard clearance/information. It has become apparent that this will not be forthcoming because for the last three years he has done absolutely nothing for the client.

In summary the 28 February 2013 and 2014 accounts have not been filed at HMRC, I believe nil accounts were filed for 2012 as I have seen a nil tax calculation despite significant profits that year. An assessment has been raised for 2013 with penalties and nothing yet for 2014 except for a late filing penalty.

As you can imagine Companies House is no better. Incorrect accounts submitted for 2012, 2013 were over 6 months late but then filed as nil. A late filing fee of £1,500 was raised on this yet successfully appealed. Now that 2014 are 5 months late and will incur a fee of £750 (as long as we get them submitted by the end of May) the 2013 previous fine has been reinstated.

Personal tax returns have been filed although with incorrect dividend information on them.

It transpires the previous Accountant is not a member of an Institute or indeed qualified.

It really does beggar belief both the mess and why he offered to act for the client in the first place. He had moved from a reputable firm under the pretence of tax savings.

I personally have not come across such a path of destruction before and the client obviously wishes to take the matter further to recover the pending fines and interest but as the Accountant is not a member of an Institute/Body does he have any options?

He has been advised the Citizens Advice do not cover businesses.

I would welcome anyones previous experience on this matter.

Adam

Replies (57)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By bernard michael
20th Apr 2015 14:00

The client should consult a solicitor and issue a claim for the damages/loss suffered by his incompetence. The fact he isn't a member of a professional body doesn't matter.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Peter613:
By johngroganjga
20th Apr 2015 14:21

Caveat emptor

bernard michael wrote:

The fact he isn't a member of a professional body doesn't matter.

I agree that the fact that he is unqualified is not, of itself, a bar to legal action to recover the client's losses, but there are two issues. Firstly he may not be insured. Secondly the test applied by the court in all these case is whether the conduct of the professional fell short of the standard reasonably to be expected. I would guess that that standard would be significantly less in this case than it would be if he had been qualified.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to gillybean04:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
20th Apr 2015 14:40

John, a question

johngroganjga wrote:

bernard michael wrote:

The fact he isn't a member of a professional body doesn't matter.

I agree that the fact that he is unqualified is not, of itself, a bar to legal action to recover the client's losses, but there are two issues. Firstly he may not be insured. Secondly the test applied by the court in all these case is whether the conduct of the professional fell short of the standard reasonably to be expected. I would guess that that standard would be significantly less in this case than it would be if he had been qualified.

 

John

Why would the courts take such a view, surely their benchmark of the standard that could reasonably be expected would  (ought) to be calculated by dint of the nature of the service to be provided  (and a reasonable provision of that service) rather than the provider of that service, or  do the courts differentiate on the basis of the provider, as you surmise?

Thanks (0)
Replying to gillybean04:
David Winch
By David Winch
20th Apr 2015 14:49

@johngroganjga

johngroganjga wrote:

the test applied by the court in all these case is whether the conduct of the professional fell short of the standard reasonably to be expected. I would guess that that standard would be significantly less in this case than it would be if he had been qualified.

You raise an interesting point.  I think that the court would expect a higher standard of skill & knowledge from a firm which holds itself out as having, say, tax expertise, or being, say, 'a specialist in owner / managed businesses'.  Also I would think that a national / international firm would be expected to have resources / skills / knowledge greater than a High Street one man band.

But this is nevertheless a firm which describes itself as accountants (presumably) and offers its services as such to the public for a fee.

I think a court would expect such a firm to be able to deal with mainstream accounts & tax matters for a small business (even one that is incorporated) especially as the firm had agreed to act (& did purport to act) for this type of client.

The suggestion here is not simply that the firm failed to garner every possible tax advantage for its client.  The allegation is that the firm failed to attend to routine matters reasonably promptly in any way that could be regarded as acceptable.

Indeed there may be correspondence to the client in which the firm says 'We have done X, Y & Z' when in fact they haven't.  Any such correspondence would be regarded as significant by a court I suggest.

I do agree that (a) the client should be advised to consult a solicitor about making a claim for negligence / breach of contract against the former firm, and (b) that the firm may not be insured & so the claim, even if successful, may result in no recompense for the unfortunate client.

David

Thanks (0)
Replying to gillybean04:
By johngroganjga
20th Apr 2015 14:57

Standard

davidwinch wrote:

I think a court would expect such a firm to be able to deal with mainstream accounts & tax matters for a small business (even one that is incorporated) especially as the firm had agreed to act (& did purport to act) for this type of client.

Yes of course. I didn't mean that there was no standard at all that could be expected of unqualified accountants, just that it was a lower one. From the sound of it these accountants failed to get off the ground at all, so they fell short of any conceivable standard, and my point is perhaps only an academic one in this particular case.

I would focus more on whether they were insured. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to gillybean04:
avatar
By TaxMatters
24th Apr 2015 21:51

The standard expected

Regardless of whether he is qualified or not it is sufficient that he held himself out to be a qualified accountant and therefore the standard is that of the average member of the profession

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
20th Apr 2015 14:00

rogue client?

what has the client done during this period....?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By neileg
20th Apr 2015 14:30

Beware

Two obvious possibilities here:

1. Previous accountant is incompetant. In which case, it is the clients privelidge to pursue the old accountant. Do not get drawn into a slanging match. Any comments you make should be strictly limited to a setting out of the facts. Make sure the client knows how much he will have to pay you to resolve the deficiencies. Do not offer or accept the role of being the client's champion - you will not benefit from this.

2. Client is incompetant. Previous accountant has done his best but has been let down by lassitude/indifference of the client. Run away.

Whether this is 1 or 2 may take time to decide. Option 1 may appeal but I suspect you will live to regret it. Option 2 is much, much safer. It will leave you time to pursue grade 1 clients who realise that the client accountant relationship depends on both sides acting responsibly.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By bernard michael
20th Apr 2015 14:30

True but the fact that he marketed himself as being a capable professional will stand against him. However did the client know he wasn't qualified ??

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
avatar
By Adam Kelly
21st Apr 2015 08:29

Qualified

bernard michael wrote:

True but the fact that he marketed himself as being a capable professional will stand against him. However did the client know he wasn't qualified ??

No the client was not aware until just recently.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bernard michael
20th Apr 2015 14:36

True but it might be option 3, which is both 1 & 2 combined

Thanks (1)
By johngroganjga
20th Apr 2015 14:50

I am no lawyer of course, but I have been involved in numerous professional negligence cases as an expert witness, and seen what the courts do.

I am speaking of the courts in England and Wales of course. For all I know it is different in Scotland.

The point is simply that if I were asked to say whether the same standard should be expected of an unqualified accountant as one should expect of a qualified accountant I would say no.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
20th Apr 2015 14:58

Delict

johngroganjga wrote:

I am no lawyer of course, but I have been involved in numerous professional negligence cases as an expert witness, and seen what the courts do.

I am speaking of the courts in England and Wales of course. For all I know it is different in Scotland.

The point is simply that if I were asked to say whether the same standard should be expected of an unqualified accountant as one should expect of a qualified accountant I would say no.

 

I am not sure Scotland and England are that apart on delict; we borrow the reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus from England and I believe down south you make use of our snail in a bottle.

Thanks (1)
Replying to gillybean04:
David Winch
By David Winch
20th Apr 2015 15:23

Mind your language!

DJKL wrote:

I am not sure Scotland and England are that apart on delict; we borrow the reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus from England and I believe down south you make use of our snail in a bottle.

We do indeed love your beer swilling escargot but we speak a different language south of the border.  No pursuers, no diets, no delict & precious little common law.  We are very statute minded down here.  Ms Donoghue would be waving her copy of Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Product Liability) (Modification) Order 2000 at Messrs Stevenson!

David

Thanks (0)
Replying to NH:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
20th Apr 2015 16:09

What did the Romans.....

davidwinch wrote:

DJKL wrote:

I am not sure Scotland and England are that apart on delict; we borrow the reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus from England and I believe down south you make use of our snail in a bottle.

We do indeed love your beer swilling escargot but we speak a different language south of the border.  No pursuers, no diets, no delict & precious little common law.  We are very statute minded down here.  Ms Donoghue would be waving her copy of Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Product Liability) (Modification) Order 2000 at Messrs Stevenson!

David

Yes,  certainly a foreign language, large chunks of our  civil law appears to sprout from Justinian. (What did the Romans ever gives to us, except for.....)

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to NH:
By petersaxton
20th Apr 2015 17:08

116?

davidwinch wrote:

DJKL wrote:

I am not sure Scotland and England are that apart on delict; we borrow the reasonable man on the Clapham Omnibus from England and I believe down south you make use of our snail in a bottle.

We do indeed love your beer swilling escargot but we speak a different language south of the border.  No pursuers, no diets, no delict & precious little common law.  We are very statute minded down here.  Ms Donoghue would be waving her copy of Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Product Liability) (Modification) Order 2000 at Messrs Stevenson!

David

At 116 years old?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By andy.partridge
20th Apr 2015 15:00

You might, John

johngroganjga wrote:

The point is simply that if I were asked to say whether the same standard should be expected of an unqualified accountant as one should expect of a qualified accountant I would say no.

 

But you are not approaching the question from the same angle as the average punter who might a) expect all accountants to be 'qualified' to do the job they say they can do and b) have virtually zero knowledge (in my experience) of any difference between the entry requirements of the various accountancy bodies and quasi-qualified accountancy associations.

Your answer, in Court, is of course based on the nature of the question asked, but to me it sounds like the wrong question.

Thanks (0)
Replying to petercooperuk:
By johngroganjga
20th Apr 2015 15:58

Question

andy.partridge wrote:

But you are not approaching the question from the same angle as the average punter who might a) expect all accountants to be 'qualified' to do the job they say they can do and b) have virtually zero knowledge (in my experience) of any difference between the entry requirements of the various accountancy bodies and quasi-qualified accountancy associations.

Your answer, in Court, is of course based on the nature of the question asked, but to me it sounds like the wrong question.

I am not setting the question.  I am giving you my understanding of the question the court asks - "did this conduct fall short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent .... " - which is enshrined in case law.

It may well be that a court somewhere has decided whether a client who didn't know the difference between a qualified and unqualified professional was entitled to expect the unqualified one to perform perform to the same standard as a qualified one, but if they have I have no idea how the point was decided.  

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
20th Apr 2015 15:12

Thinking this through

johngroganjga wrote:

I am no lawyer of course, but I have been involved in numerous professional negligence cases as an expert witness, and seen what the courts do.

I am speaking of the courts in England and Wales of course. For all I know it is different in Scotland.

The point is simply that if I were asked to say whether the same standard should be expected of an unqualified accountant as one should expect of a qualified accountant I would say no.

 

Thinking this through, the courts do appear to differentiate between say qualified trustees and unqualified trustees vis a vis their conduct running a trust, so I do see where you are coming from.

But is not the differentiation that of the paid professional and the unpaid amateur? Does qualification enter into it or is it more holding oneself out as being able to deliver.

As David I think implies (David, sorry if I am putting words into your mouth), where the "amateur" expects to be rewarded like the "pro" he also takes on the responsibility to deliver like the "pro". (A lesson that, after my visit to Hampden on Saturday, the Hibs players might like to take on board)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Vaughan Blake1
20th Apr 2015 16:02

Do the math

If you take this case on tot up the late filing fines and any penalties, don't include the tax or interest.  Then compare this to potential solicitor's fees.  Then ask the client what he thought was happening all the time the previous accountant was acting. Did he take in his books?  Did he not wonder why he had not seen or signed anything?  Did he not receive penalty notices?

Sounds a bit fishy to be honest. 

 

Thanks (2)
Replying to Paula@Butt:
avatar
By razertoo
20th Apr 2015 16:15

@vaughanblake1

Vaughan Blake1 wrote:

If you take this case on tot up the late filing fines and any penalties, don't include the tax or interest.  Then compare this to potential solicitor's fees.  Then ask the client what he thought was happening all the time the previous accountant was acting. Did he take in his books?  Did he not wonder why he had not seen or signed anything?  Did he not receive penalty notices?

Sounds a bit fishy to be honest. 

 

I agree. Regardless of what the "accountant" did or didn't do it is the director's ultimate responsibility to ensure that documents are correct and filed on time and I refuse to believe he cannot have been completely unaware of his situation.

Thanks (0)
Replying to ohwhatnow:
By mwngiol
20th Apr 2015 16:40

Clients

razertoo wrote:

Vaughan Blake1 wrote:

If you take this case on tot up the late filing fines and any penalties, don't include the tax or interest.  Then compare this to potential solicitor's fees.  Then ask the client what he thought was happening all the time the previous accountant was acting. Did he take in his books?  Did he not wonder why he had not seen or signed anything?  Did he not receive penalty notices?

Sounds a bit fishy to be honest. 

 

I agree. Regardless of what the "accountant" did or didn't do it is the director's ultimate responsibility to ensure that documents are correct and filed on time and I refuse to believe he cannot have been completely unaware of his situation.

Yes it is the director's ultimate responsibility. But if you genuinely can't believe that a client can be completely unaware of pretty much any situation when it comes to tax, then you must have a client base most of us can only dream of.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By buttinski
20th Apr 2015 16:10

There are two angles

and therefore two questions:-

Did the accountant provide less than the expected level of service (given his/her qualifications)?

Did the punter receive less than the expected level of service (given his expectations, however determined)?

and therefore two answers!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
20th Apr 2015 16:52

I don't think being

completely ignorant to your responsibilities as a director will provide you with much of a case when trying to take the accountant to the cleaners.  I am still wondering how they managed to get a successful appeal against Co Hse penalties....

Thanks (0)
Replying to aadil:
By petersaxton
20th Apr 2015 23:22

What penalties?

justsotax wrote:

completely ignorant to your responsibilities as a director will provide you with much of a case when trying to take the accountant to the cleaners.  I am still wondering how they managed to get a successful appeal against Co Hse penalties....

Companies House only send penalties when accounts are filed - sorry, by the time I read the above I'd forgotten the facts of the OP!

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Adam Kelly
20th Apr 2015 21:52

Penalties

Thanks justsotax

Yes the penalties were raised on 2013 and appealed but will stand once the 2014 accounts are filed late.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
20th Apr 2015 17:11

Directors

Although Companies House should warn the directors by letter.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Adam Kelly
20th Apr 2015 18:49

Original post

Thanks for everyones input.

Some of which has gone off track but appreciated anyway.

Yes I agree that I have come across these cases before where the client has be either partly or largely responsible, however this is not the case.

Yes the client was naive but placed his faith in an Accountant.

My question is what avenues we can pursue to stop this happening to other sole traders, companies etc..

He is acting unlawfully and I feel strongly that some action is required to protect his clients/future clients. I am not looking at financial benefit to me but we all know what damage this causes us as genuine tax advisers and Accountants. 

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
20th Apr 2015 19:39

Acting unlawfully?

In what sense do you mean that he is acting unlawfully?  It is true that if he lets people down they may sue him for breach of contract & negligence - but did you mean something more than that?

I do not think you can put a competitor out of business on the grounds that he is not much good.  It is for you to market the benefits of using a person such as yourself & for clients to make their choice.

David

Thanks (1)
Replying to tltodman:
avatar
By Adam Kelly
20th Apr 2015 21:50

David

I may have used the term 'unlawfully' incorrectly. I am no solicitor but I feel that he has been let down by the previous advisor, I am not trying to put anyone out of business, I was seeking advice on what steps my client could take.

Thank you for your response David, I welcome all feedback on this matter.

Thanks (0)
Replying to ShayaG:
avatar
By Adam Kelly
20th Apr 2015 22:09

Thank you for your response Fawlty

I have no idea, as I type, about the signatures on the accounts. (I have no sight of the originals)

I do believe the client was naive and place his trust in the advisor "Accountant".

As for my behaviour, yes I have written and phoned twice with assurance that he would respond but to no avail. In the meantime, the client was advised that if he contacts him again that he would report him for harassment, which made me reluctant to phone again.

When I refer to 'the client' I do not refer to 'my client'. I am aware of the protocol but also of the pressing time issues to deal with this matter and that the previous advisor was not a member of ICAEW or any other body. I appreciate that you do not wish cause offence and that I did not highlight all of the issues in my first post as I wished to keep it to the main facts and request a course of action forward.

Thank you again for your input and maybe I should temper my advice, however frustrating it is.

Adam

Thanks (0)
Replying to gps999:
By petersaxton
20th Apr 2015 23:25

Easy to progress

Adam Kelly wrote:

Thank you for your response Fawlty

I have no idea, as I type, about the signatures on the accounts. (I have no sight of the originals)

I do believe the client was naive and place his trust in the advisor "Accountant".

As for my behaviour, yes I have written and phoned twice with assurance that he would respond but to no avail. In the meantime, the client was advised that if he contacts him again that he would report him for harassment, which made me reluctant to phone again.

When I refer to 'the client' I do not refer to 'my client'. I am aware of the protocol but also of the pressing time issues to deal with this matter and that the previous advisor was not a member of ICAEW or any other body. I appreciate that you do not wish cause offence and that I did not highlight all of the issues in my first post as I wished to keep it to the main facts and request a course of action forward.

Thank you again for your input and maybe I should temper my advice, however frustrating it is.

Adam

You could get the originals from Companies House.

The harassment threat seems hollow given the circumstances.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Jack123:
avatar
By Adam Kelly
21st Apr 2015 08:18

@petersaxton

The nil accounts that have been filed at Companies House were filed electronically and therefore no signature.

Thanks (0)
Out of my mind
By runningmate
20th Apr 2015 21:31

Plan B

Is there a Plan B - form a new company & start over?

RM

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Matrix
20th Apr 2015 22:26

If the client wishes to seek their own advice and pursue these accountants then it is their choice.

Your job is to provide a quote for bringing it all up to date (if you want the work), get paid and get on with the info available.

I had a client where I did not receive any prof clearance or handover info and the previous accounts were a load of rubbish.  I managed to file accounts in the end, it cost nearly double (and I had to write off time) and neither the client nor I had the energy by the end of it to write to the previous accountant's institute.

You request clearance one final time, recorded delivery and say that you will assume that if you do not hear otherwise that prof clearance is granted.  You can also list all the info required.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Paula@Butt:
avatar
By clairebear
24th Apr 2015 12:57

Advice

I think Matrix has it spot on here - get on with the job you have been asked to do, and let the client determine what they want to do with regards to the previous incumbent.

That being said, given that their keenness to save money was the reason why they moved from their previous firm, I would recommend that you make them fully aware of what is involved and how much it will cost to get them out of this hole.   Good luck!

Matrix wrote:

If the client wishes to seek their own advice and pursue these accountants then it is their choice.

Your job is to provide a quote for bringing it all up to date (if you want the work), get paid and get on with the info available.

I had a client where I did not receive any prof clearance or handover info and the previous accounts were a load of rubbish.  I managed to file accounts in the end, it cost nearly double (and I had to write off time) and neither the client nor I had the energy by the end of it to write to the previous accountant's institute.

You request clearance one final time, recorded delivery and say that you will assume that if you do not hear otherwise that prof clearance is granted.  You can also list all the info required.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bernard michael
21st Apr 2015 10:08

The client should consult a solicitor and issue a claim for the damages/loss suffered by his incompetence. The fact he isn't a member of a professional body doesn't matter.

Much as I admire your missionary zeal with this prospective client I stand by the advice above I gave earlier. You should walk away having given him a written summary of his position as you see it. To continue will only give you a lot of extra unpaid  work and worry and could draw you into the litigation.Also when you fail to produce what he sees as the correct result he will be miffed and ungrateful.

You do not need this agro !!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By macaulay147
24th Apr 2015 12:34

Engagment Letter

I may have missed it as I only skimmed read through some of the posts but I have not seen anyone ask whether your potential new client had an engagement letter with the previous accountant. Also note that the penalty for filing late again this year will be double if they were also late last year. ie if the accounts are filed late again this year but within 3-6 months then the penalty would be £1,500.

Thanks (0)
By The Minion
24th Apr 2015 13:04

Tread very carefully

We too had a similar situation where the previous (in this case qualified) accountant had been liberal with what he put in the accounts and the client knew what was and wasn't going in the accounts - we found by discussion with client that they (the client) had simply argued him into submission ( a tactic later used against our selves, unsuccessfully).

The previous accountants were taken over (he was given a free holiday by HM Gov).

We went through everything because what the client was telling us didn't match anything. We even wrote to the accountants who took over the practice for copies of elections/claims which we had said would have been nice to have had in place "Oh they got us to sign those" was the response.

Eventually we discovered that they hadn't signed anything and were being economical with the truth. We told them the true position, the true tax liabilities that should have been paid and needed to be paid and...

we got sacked.

New (qualified) accountant took over, we told them everything and the still took them over.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By markabacus
24th Apr 2015 13:19

What was client doing throughout? And it's not just unqualfied

Blimey, what was the client doing throughout this whole period, years of no accounts. They can hardly claim they didn't know as they got penalties from Co House never mind the HMRC.

Certainly quite a mess but don't be so hasty to knock the the accountant just because he was unqualified. I maybe bias but I've had more issues with handovers from qualified practices than unqualified. The last one from a qualified practice I was advised after consulting with our consultancy support company and ICPA for confirmations on what I had discovered resulted in me filing my first SOCA report.

 

Thanks (0)
7om
By Tom 7000
24th Apr 2015 17:28

Alternatively, as its Friday night

He's a witch.

 

BURN HIM!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By TaxMatters
24th Apr 2015 21:59

My Experience

In the last couple of years I have been paying close attention to this kind of occurrence. We are taking on over 50 clients per quarter so we see a wide diversity of quality of work. The unqualified accountant is not alone in his glory. We have seen poor quality of work from all levels from the largest in the area to one man bands and of course the unqualified "accountant"

An on-going case of mine which is very similar, the unqualified "accountant" failed to file accounts, submitted fictitious VAT returns etc. (sound familiar?) The "accountant" was arrested and bailed pending enquiries.

A qualified accountant produced the accounts of a partnership T/over £30K per year but he managed to "overlook" turnover of £450,000 over a 3 year period? He contributed a couple of thousand towards my fees!

A business owner I had approached a couple of years ago was perfectly satisfied with the accountant he had used for about 30 years. A year or so later he walked into my shop to become a client. His company including £500.000 worth of assets had been struck off because no accounts had been filed for three years. Luckily we were able to get it back but at some cost.

A new client gained from the largest practise in the area. We had to resubmit the accounts and tax returns for the last 4 years. what a mess!

I could go on for hours!

Until something is done about the unqualified accountant we will always have this kind of chaos and the client believes he is getting a better deal because it is cheaper. What to do about the quality of work from the qualified accountant? I'm open to offers!

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to hrimmer:
avatar
By Vaughan Blake1
28th Apr 2015 13:20

To sue or not to sue, that is the question

TaxMatters wrote:

We are taking on over 50 clients per quarter so we see a wide diversity of quality of work.

Have you taken any of the shockers to task for financial recompense and what has been the result?

My experience is that it is better to just sort it out and move on.  Litigation seems to take forever, the client's actions (or inactions) can be a major contributory factor when the full story comes out.  Then, enforcing a judgement against a one man band with no insurance cover often results in failure. 

In the meantime, the new accountant and the client have expended considerable time, emotional energy and money that could have been better spent on building up the business!

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
24th Apr 2015 22:04

It takes all sorts

There's poor work from qualifieds and unqualifieds. I suppose it is less likely from a qualified because of the effort needed to qualify in the first place.

Thanks (1)
By paddy55
25th Apr 2015 03:37

Quality of professional work

A professional person must meet the standards of what he holds himself out to be.

A person holding himself out as a professional accountant must meet these standards. A person holding himself out as a bookkeeper must meet his standards.

A person suffering loss must do his best to mitigate that loss. Otherwise he will not recover full compensation.

Thanks (0)
Replying to McCue1954:
David Winch
By David Winch
25th Apr 2015 11:02

What do you mean by "professional"?

paddy55 wrote:

A professional person must meet the standards of what he holds himself out to be.

A person holding himself out as a professional accountant must meet these standards. A person holding himself out as a bookkeeper must meet his standards.

What do you mean by a "professional accountant" - presumably as distinct from an unprofessional one?  Do you mean a "qualified accountant" or do you mean "an accountant in practice"?

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By EricO
25th Apr 2015 10:54

My hat is off

To the incompetent who managed to do something I have never managed to in many years - get a Companies House fine overturned!

Thanks (0)
By paddy55
25th Apr 2015 12:47

Quality of professional work

Hi David,

By "professional accountant", I mean to imply its ordinary meaning i.e. an accountant who holds himself out as being able to do professional accounting work to an acceptable standard..

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TaxMatters
27th Apr 2015 11:33

Companies House

Greetings Eric0

I have managed to avoid a penalty from Companies House once. The penalty was not cancelled they simply agreed not to collect it. The way to do it appears to be to continually appeal their decision. Costly and time consuming so only do it out of principle.

 

Good luck!

Thanks (1)
By petersaxton
27th Apr 2015 11:48

The best way to avoid a penalty is to not submit the accounts and submit the next years very quickly.

Thanks (0)

Pages