Thanks Mark In our case the landlord is a well known bank and the agents and lawyers "speak nicely and wear suits" - but it comes down to the much the same thing as you describe.
Thank you for taking the trouble to share the sorry tale of your client - I suspect there are many more out there and would like to hear from others.
Wonderful as accountants are, I would feel very uneasy if one was to pick through my personal affairs and draw conclusions without detailed reference to me.
I think we know that the legislation will not work. A certain type of pendantic accountant might welcome the opportunity to report suspicions without a detailed review with a client - but most of us know that life is just not as simple as it seems. The Catch 22 of not putting a client on notice of the potential of reporting him/her but being fair and reasonable and honest at the same time is a stumbling block.
But is this legislation the only impractical and highly theoretical law to be introduced in recent years? - well of course not. Anyone involved in tax knows that. The fact that my highly intelligent clients cannot easily understand the basis of the calculation of their own tax liability seems to me to be anti-democratic.
Railing against the introduction of the law today does smack of the Victor Meldrew syndrome. To make a difference I think there has to be a marshalling of the (now) many absurdities of recent law and regulation - with a view to forcing a democratic debate among the ordinary citizens (oops, sorry - "subjects") of Britain.
But who is to promote and stimulate that debate? - and to what end? - and how does it achieve political and therefore "practical" clout?
A generalisation that might be wrong - but do "younger people" deal with the nonsense required of them/us by government, without question or complaint, simply because that is the simple and quickest way to carry on?
If that is broadly true, then it would require older heads to co-ordinate a protest debate about the way we are governed - but who would want to start such a long fight when tending the roses might be just a few years ahead
I enjoy the anger expressed in some of the posts so far but Seneca suggested that anger is the frustration of the world not being as you like it to be (or something like that). So unless effective action is proposed we may as well save our breath.
My answers
Thanks Mark
In our case the landlord is a well known bank and the agents and lawyers "speak nicely and wear suits" - but it comes down to the much the same thing as you describe.
Thank you for taking the trouble to share the sorry tale of your client - I suspect there are many more out there and would like to hear from others.
Cliff
Apathy or exhaustion?
Wonderful as accountants are, I would feel very uneasy if one was to pick through my personal affairs and draw conclusions without detailed reference to me.
I think we know that the legislation will not work. A certain type of pendantic accountant might welcome the opportunity to report suspicions without a detailed review with a client - but most of us know that life is just not as simple as it seems. The Catch 22 of not putting a client on notice of the potential of reporting him/her but being fair and reasonable and honest at the same time is a stumbling block.
But is this legislation the only impractical and highly theoretical law to be introduced in recent years? - well of course not. Anyone involved in tax knows that. The fact that my highly intelligent clients cannot easily understand the basis of the calculation of their own tax liability seems to me to be anti-democratic.
Railing against the introduction of the law today does smack of the Victor Meldrew syndrome. To make a difference I think there has to be a marshalling of the (now) many absurdities of recent law and regulation - with a view to forcing a democratic debate among the ordinary citizens (oops, sorry - "subjects") of Britain.
But who is to promote and stimulate that debate? - and to what end? - and how does it achieve political and therefore "practical" clout?
A generalisation that might be wrong - but do "younger people" deal with the nonsense required of them/us by government, without question or complaint, simply because that is the simple and quickest way to carry on?
If that is broadly true, then it would require older heads to co-ordinate a protest debate about the way we are governed - but who would want to start such a long fight when tending the roses might be just a few years ahead
I enjoy the anger expressed in some of the posts so far but Seneca suggested that anger is the frustration of the world not being as you like it to be (or something like that). So unless effective action is proposed we may as well save our breath.