My B--t-rd Accountant

[Edwardian]

This month goes from bad to worse.  It started with My Hermes losing most of the volumes of the Midland Record and not doing anything about it.

 

It continued today with a letter from my accountant saying, in terms, 'you know we asked you to pay a monthly retainer to cover the work we do for you?  Well, several years into that, we have decided that it was too low, so we are putting it up and you owe us £4K you have 'under paid'"

 

If anyone in the Peterborough area is considering changing accountants, PM me and I'll warn you off this greedy, duplicitous g1t.

[chris p bacon]

I've had the same accountant since 1988 and I'm happy with him, I would say that if he retires I'd move practise though as I wouldn't trust the rest of them.

 

I'd ask them to quantify the work and why they feel they've been 'underpaid' when they would have set the rate in the first place.

[NorthBrit]

As an accountant should know; to increase payments  ---

1 You are entitled to at least one month notice before the increase the payments  --  to give you chance to find another accountant if you wish.

2  They cannot ask for back payments on an increase

 

They can only ask for back payments if you knew of any increase of - say - last year.

[Jonboy]

Do they list themselves as part of a professional body, and do you have written terms of engagement?

[Horsetan]

I do my own accounts.

 

They're due again at the end of the month *sighs*

[Andrew1974]

As an accountant should know; to increase payments  ---

1 You are entitled to at least one month notice before the increase the payments  --  to give you chance to find another accountant if you wish.

2  They cannot ask for back payments on an increase

 

They can only ask for back payments if you knew of any increase of - say - last year.

Surely it depends what you initially signed up for. If it was work for a fixed fee then I would suggest you are correct, however the OP refers to a retainer, which can (depending on wording of the contract) be more akin to a payment on account, with the detailed bill to follow, even if that is the case, going back several years does seem out of order.

 

Good luck sorting it out.

[Edwardian]

Surely it depends what you initially signed up for. If it was work for a fixed fee then I would suggest you are correct, however the OP refers to a retainer, which can (depending on wording of the contract) be more akin to a payment on account, with the detailed bill to follow, even if that is the case, going back several years does seem out of order.

 

Good luck sorting it out.

 

Thanks.

 

Frankly, it goes to show how relatively under-regulated accountants are.  They may well be a "fee catch-up clause", but it doesn't make this remotely acceptable or professional behaviour.  If a solicitor tried to do this to a client it would probably result in reprimands from the regulator (do accountants even have one?), the Ombudsman (ditto) and the inability to recover fees. 

 

Sadly, I think this is the sort of bill a practice sends to a client when they no longer want its custom. They are also impliedly, though not expressly, leveraging off the fact that they are sitting on my annual accounts that need filing.

 

You say you're going to do it for "X", then years later you say, "actually, it was X times 2 or 3". How many trades or professions would get away with that?

[PhilH]

Thanks.

 

Frankly, it goes to show how relatively under-regulated accountants are.  They may well be a "fee catch-up clause", but it doesn't make this remotely acceptable or professional behaviour.  If a solicitor tried to do this to a client it would probably result in reprimands from the regulator (do accountants even have one?), the Ombudsman (ditto) and the inability to recover fees. 

 

Sadly, I think this is the sort of bill a practice sends to a client when they no longer want its custom. They are also impliedly, though not expressly, leveraging off the fact that they are sitting on my annual accounts that need filing.

 

You say you're going to do it for "X", then years later you say, "actually, it was X times 2 or 3". How many trades or professions would get away with that?

But are you SURE they can get away with it...I'd at least go to CAB or a free half hour with a solicitor if the waters are in the least bit muddy over this. Without knowing how they work sounds like an extremely dodgy practice.

[gismorail]

Having been self employed for most of my working life I think best course of action is the good old fashioned FO......very crude I know but ars..oles like that tend not to understand polite language....

[Kiwi]

You need to contact the professional association. This link should get you started: https://www.icaew.com/en/about-icaew/act-in-the-public-interest/complaints-process/make-a-complaint

 

From your description this sounds like the sort of practice that was definitely frowned on when I was last involved in the UK, though that was over 30 years ago.

 

I'm assuming your accountant is a properly registered member. If not, then you may well be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. I certainly hope that's not the case.

[Edwardian]

Thanks for the further replies and the continued support ratings.  It all helps.  Rest assured, I am certainly not minded to take this lying down, though I am giving them an opportunity to experience a change of heart before I roll my sleeves up and get stuck in to the legal and regulatory details.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Edwardian

[Edge]

May be worth looking into what regulations cover this and what recourse is open to you with the financial conduct authority and he financial ombudsman.

[Welchester]

Might you refer your accountant to the answer given in Arkell v. Pressdram?

[Torper]

It strikes me that if the accountants have decided that they are now putting up the retainer, then I can see no justification in law for them retrospectively applying the rise and you shouldn't pay it.  The same applies if they increased the retainer some time ago but didn't tell you about it.  If they want to amend their contract with you they should give you both proper notice and the opportunity to withdraw from the contract if you don't accept the new terms.

 

DT

[jjb1970]

 

Sadly, I think this is the sort of bill a practice sends to a client when they no longer want its custom. They are also impliedly, though not expressly, leveraging off the fact that they are sitting on my annual accounts that need filing.

 

You say you're going to do it for "X", then years later you say, "actually, it was X times 2 or 3". How many trades or professions would get away with that?

 

I think you're probably right with your supposition that they've decided they no longer want your custom.

 

On the second point, my own experience when doing consulting engineering and regulatory work is that the work is either done for a fixed fee, or it is done on a reimbursable basis with hourly fees agreed in advance and invoiced monthly. In neither case could I change those fees retrospectively, and they could not be changed after signing a contract without offering the client an escape from that contract. And depending on the contract the client could hold me to those fees or see my employer in court to resolve things. If the fees are inappropriate and too low then it is the fault of the supplier for going in too low to win work, if it was the other way round I don't think they'd be offering you a refund.

[kevinlms]

Thanks for the further replies and the continued support ratings.  It all helps.  Rest assured, I am certainly not minded to take this lying down, though I am giving them an opportunity to experience a change of heart before I roll my sleeves up and get stuck in to the legal and regulatory details.

Are you sure that your accountants practice, isn't owned by an Australian bank?

 

They have done that type of thing, for some of their 'financial services' clients. They are wondering why many left leaning politicians, are calling for a Royal Commission, into banking practices.

[hayfield]

Thanks for the further replies and the continued support ratings.  It all helps.  Rest assured, I am certainly not minded to take this lying down, though I am giving them an opportunity to experience a change of heart before I roll my sleeves up and get stuck in to the legal and regulatory details.

 

 

Good luck and I hope all goes well, certainly ask for detailed bills and unless you have had several years of accounts not been agreed and extra work has been undertaken then I cannot see what they are asking for. Its up to them to give you a statement of accounts for each year, if they have failed to do so then that's their problem not yours

[rockershovel]

I had an occasion of this sort, a while ago, covering about three years.

 

However... I had agreed when I joined this particular accountant, that the retainer was a “payment on account” and would be subject to review before being finally closed out. Like a lot of offshore workers, my accounts can be a bit “colourful” and he DID recover some quite significant sums from HMRC. After various issues, which DID involve quite a lot of additional work, I eventually settled for around twice the original fee. I’d have preferred to have kept closer tabs on this, but we weren’t in dispute.

 

It’s my experience that a surprising number of my colleagues over time have NOT kept a sufficient check on their financial affairs, and subsequent bills for additional work dealing with HMRC Investigations, or closing “problem” accounts seem to be fairly common.

 

That said, I’ve also had a number of experiences with accountants which left me with quite a bad taste in my mouth. They seem to be almost without effective regulation, and the amount of dubious promotional material for “creative” tax avoidance schemes which drops unread into my Spam folder is quite large..

Edited October 17, 2017 by rockershovel

[Legend]

Is he a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants ? You don't say, but I'd imagine a letter to ICAEW , or even the threat of it , would focus his attention. My own institute would take a dim view on anything that brought the profession into disrepute .This is bad practice and I doubt he can impose it, but I haven't seen what letter of engagement you have. You are going to have to find another accountant I'm afraid. I'd certainly not want to trust someone that thought they could get away with this.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Legend

[Enterprisingwestern]

To compound the felony, he doesn't drive a German car perchance?

 

Mike.

[Mark Saunders]

 

 

It continued today with a letter from my accountant saying, in terms, 'you know we asked you to pay a monthly retainer to cover the work we do for you?  Well, several years into that, we have decided that it was too low, so we are putting it up and you owe us £4K you have 'under paid'"

 

 

This sounds strange we have decided to backdate our increase in fees to make up for our incompetence!

[Culmhead]

Is he a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants ? You don't say, but I'd imagine a letter to ICAEW , or even the threat of it , would focus his attention. My own institute would take a dim view on anything that brought the profession into disrepute .This is bad practice and I doubt he can impose it, but I haven't seen what letter of engagement you have. You are going to have to find another accountant I'm afraid. I'd certainly not want to trust someone that thought they could get away with this.

Just to add to the above, anyone can call themselves an accountant, but not a chartered accountant (of any of the professional bodies). This has been a major gripe amongst chartered accountants for many years. The professional bodies who are allowed to practice publicly are:

- ACCA - Association of Chartered Certified Accountants:

- ICAEW - Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. Other related bodies cover Scotland and Ireland:

- CIMA - Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (with a public practice certificate only).

 

All the above have their respective regulatory bodies, in the same way as other professions. In general someone offering/ calling themselves 'accountancy services' will unlikely be a qualified chartered accountant.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Culmhead

[BG John]

In general someone offering/ calling themselves 'accountancy services' will unlikely be a qualified chartered accountant.

But that doesn't mean they're no good!

[Culmhead]

No that doesn't, but it does mean that they are not bound by professional standards or have the relevant indemnity insurance.

[BG John]

No that doesn't, but it does mean that they are not bound by professional standards or have the relevant indemnity insurance.

Indemnity insurance is available. I used to have it. And anyone who provides accounting services now has to be signed up to HMRC's money laundering protection racket, so can't afford not to do a proper job, in case their client is found to be up to no good.