Member Since: 23rd Aug 2000
8th Feb 2019
Agreed. I couldn't believe that the article was suggesting that there was any other way.
When I joined my practice 20 years ago, the elderly (now ex-/deceased) partner used to send out draft accounts and tax returns and not bill until they were agreed, usually many months later. That was bad enough, but doing the work, agreeing and filing everything, and then billing even later is madness.
1st Feb 2019
11th Jan 2019
I agree. A disgusting approach by ACCA. Sounds like one PITA client may have had a small issue, that was not unresolvable by his new accountant. No money lost, unlike the massive audit failures presided over by some firms (yes, probably ICAEW not ACCA), who seem to carry on with impunity.
8th Jan 2019
Re comments of Elaine Clark and others in the post:
1. It isn't a "fine", it is a reduction of bonus.
2. The issue of the write-offs is a separate one and indicates that the charge-out rates are tool high if write-offs are a regular feature. We set a sensible rate for everyone and aim to get 100%. Last year we managed 106%, this year is running at 99%.
3. Getting time posted ASAP increases accuracy rather than diluting it, as nobody can remember what job they were doing and how long they spent on it even the following day.
31st Aug 2018
But the government didn't promise that, did they? The referendum was advisory only and non-binding.
13th Apr 2016
Not sure that Sennett's transgressions merit the term "crime", as they were breaches of ICAEW guidelines and not, as far as I am aware, nor is it stated as such in the text above, criminal activity.
Also, the grammar in the Four Oaks commentary is horrific. I would cringe if one of my staff let a client letter go out worded like that. Now that should be considered a c rime!
2nd Feb 2016
Thanks JAA - We seem to have used just about everyone apart from Draper Hinks, so I might give them a call.
- Foulger Underwood have at least kept in touch, and we did a deal through them nine years ago.
- Vivan Sram put us in touch with one that we thought was close to a deal but the vendor pulled out once, came back again four months later, and then went cold again.
- Retiring Accountant have passed a couple on, neither of which were suitable.
- 2020 were slow to respond, took quite a large upfront payment (£2250+VAT) and one of the two they have put my way we met one a couple of years prior to 2020's involvement, and they had already been told that when we took them on. Not impressed so far.
2nd Feb 2016
The 50% plus 3 years is fine, and I can see that it would maximise client retention rates, so fewer clawback issues, but so many questions remain, not least:
- What was the GRF multiplier?
- Is the vendor's consultancy position paid on a flat salary or fee, or on hours worked?
- Is the vendor's involvement on a gradually reducing basis over the three years?
- What if the buyer finds that the vendor will not let go of the clients when told to, and will not adopt the working practices of the buyer?
- Is there a clawback provision if clients still walk at the end of three years?
21st Aug 2015
Per person or per trade
The initial debate also considered whether the 10k limit was per trade rather than per person, but Rebecca does not seem to have addressed this point.
26th Jan 2015
Whilst I have told friends who will be caught by this (mainly small bands and music distributors with total sales, UK and EU, of less than £5k) that the reality is that they will not be pursued by HMRC for tiny amounts of VAT on their EU sales (in most cases under £100, so VAT even less), my professional advice cannot be to simply ignore it. ACCA and PII insurers would have a field day with that!