1 - says they have no authority to deal with us when in many cases we have been acting for up to 20 years 2 - are occasionally rude and or aggressive on the phone 3 - Issue letters to repayment clients saying no need to submit returns any more 4 - issue coding notices to collect estimted tax on rents and or higher rates with no certainty that such liability actually exists 5 - Issues dozens of P35 penalty notices with fines of, up to, £900 of which all were incorrectly issued 6 - Routinely issues fines for late submission of SA returns where we hold proof of inline submission or hand delivery 7 - Have been known to write or contact clients direct without advising us (or forgetting to do so!)
etc etc
Do we get the choice of not working with them due to their incompetence (or genuine error) - NO
Do we get a chance to penalise them - NO
Do we get to charge them for the loss of time that can't be charged to our clients - NO
Can we sue them if we lose a client due to their error but the client blaming us - NO
They should join Gordon B and get the hell out of our country.
I am a member of ICAEW and i hope that they join with all the other professional and representative bodies and tell super Dave what to do with this idea - however i don't hold out too much hope here either but i would love to be proved wrong.
Positive aspect Is there not a positive aspect here in that if "buy to let" can be classed as a business if the landlord is actively involved then surely the properties themselves become business assets for taper relief and IHT purposes!
can't agree more The general response to the new logo entirely fits with my thoughts.
Who on earth wants a re-brand and why should we incur such costs either. As already stated why not spend the money on more economical regional courses (plenty of non ICAEW providers provide us with good quality and good value courses so why not the ICAEW) or use the money to enable lower fees to regional members who rarely, or never, have chance to use the London or Milton Keynes facilities.
As a practicing sole trader our clients just want good service, barely care whether we are Chartered or not, don't care at all about Practice Assurance and won't give two hoots about the change of logo.
Why weren't grass roots consulted? I guess the answer would have been an overwhelming rejection - question answered!
My answers
Outstanding!!
They have a b****y cheek
Is this the same mob that routinely
1 - says they have no authority to deal with us when in many cases we have been acting for up to 20 years
2 - are occasionally rude and or aggressive on the phone
3 - Issue letters to repayment clients saying no need to submit returns any more
4 - issue coding notices to collect estimted tax on rents and or higher rates with no certainty that such liability actually exists
5 - Issues dozens of P35 penalty notices with fines of, up to, £900 of which all were incorrectly issued
6 - Routinely issues fines for late submission of SA returns where we hold proof of inline submission or hand delivery
7 - Have been known to write or contact clients direct without advising us (or forgetting to do so!)
etc etc
Do we get the choice of not working with them due to their incompetence (or genuine error) - NO
Do we get a chance to penalise them - NO
Do we get to charge them for the loss of time that can't be charged to our clients - NO
Can we sue them if we lose a client due to their error but the client blaming us - NO
They should join Gordon B and get the hell out of our country.
I am a member of ICAEW and i hope that they join with all the other professional and representative bodies and tell super Dave what to do with this idea - however i don't hold out too much hope here either but i would love to be proved wrong.
Jon
Positive aspect
Is there not a positive aspect here in that if "buy to let" can be classed as a business if the landlord is actively involved then surely the properties themselves become business assets for taper relief and IHT purposes!
can't agree more
The general response to the new logo entirely fits with my thoughts.
Who on earth wants a re-brand and why should we incur such costs either. As already stated why not spend the money on more economical regional courses (plenty of non ICAEW providers provide us with good quality and good value courses so why not the ICAEW) or use the money to enable lower fees to regional members who rarely, or never, have chance to use the London or Milton Keynes facilities.
As a practicing sole trader our clients just want good service, barely care whether we are Chartered or not, don't care at all about Practice Assurance and won't give two hoots about the change of logo.
Why weren't grass roots consulted? I guess the answer would have been an overwhelming rejection - question answered!