I agree with the questioner that you need to be careful with dormant companies as you won't know the full history.
Many years ago I was involved with due diligence for a client and we found that the target company had at some time in the past transferred properties intra group. As was the case in those days this had involved a transfer of the beneficial ownership while legal title stayed with the transferor but they were now dormant. Subsequent to that the dormant companies were struck off the register.
When I was recruiting, it was quite common to receive a candidate's CV from multiple agents. As you have done, I applied the rule that the first one received would be the agency used, and the agents then were quite happy with that (I am sure one of them told me that was the law anyway.) This was 20 years ago and thinking back, the CVs came by post so establishing which one arrived first would have been more difficult than with e mail.
It should be easy to demonstrate which CV arrived first, and also which agency set up the interview.
I may be well out of date here but some years ago I can recall the setters of accounting standards trying to word the leasing rules so that airlines would have to capitalize the aircraft. Up till then they had avoided doing so even though the planes were under a finance lease.
It's not crazy and I have known people do it, including a PE teacher when I was at school who left to train as a Chartered Accountant, and this was in about 1972.
I would echo the reservations made by others here. The job is not what it was and the admin and paperwork just to do anything is overwhelming (though teachers say the same thing).
One interesting line to follow if you are interested is to combine the two. There is a need for lecturers/presenters in the accounting profession at all levels from new trainees to experienced professionals. Quite often this is handed to partners and managers with no training and can be worse than useless. But if you have ever attended a course with an enthusiastic and committed presenter it makes all the difference. And the audience genuinely want to learn, and don't spend all day mocking other members of the class and making smart alec questions to the teacher.
I wonder how large partnerships deal with this on a merger?
I can see a difference as the same partners will transfer to the new place but still there is a new entity of some form taking over the old practice clients
Mention of SSAP16 brings memories back to those of us getting on in years. I spent ages getting on top of it for PEII in the early 1980s, never actually having to draw up inflation accounts in practice, and it was withdrawn soon after I qualified.
Might have been good practice though as I moved into tax and had to deal with all sorts of unintelligible nonsense that still comes out in every Finance Act.
I lived there briefly in the 1970s and it's not a bad area, certainly on the eastern side, outside the city itself.
One thing you might look at is commuting to Cardiff or even Bristol. If you're driving, at least there are no tolls on the bridge anymore.
I assume that "applied for EIS" is an application for advance assurance.
Whatever else, you should advise the client to do nothing until you have the EIS assurance. And then it is only valid if you have provided all the information to HMRC.
From what you have set out, it is likely to be refused anyway.
You are right though to identify EIS as a specialist area and while it is a good idea, there are all sorts of unsuspected traps that can deny EIS to an investment.
HMRC only require an authorised person to sign, and they don't check to see that they are authorised. Ultimately it's between the members of the committee or the board of directors who is authorised.
I'm not a lawyer and would be interested to see any views, but I understood "nominated partner" to mean the individual who is acting on behalf of the other partners.
I can't see how an NP can refuse to act if all the partners agree.
As others have said, this is not a problem for the accountant but one for the partnership as a whole, who currently appear not to be meeting their legal obligations because of the inaction of one individual.