|
|
Hi There Just wondered what other people do with employing people that aren't ICB qualified.
I have just filled in my MLR8 form and included my employees who don't hold ICB qualifications. I have been told I will not get a practice licence until they have become students!
Both my ladies don't want to sit any exams and i am now in a situation that I might lose them both! They are a credit to my company and I do not want this to happen. Both my ladies have years of experience as bookkeepers and are both competant at what they do.
I am also a member of the AAT and after speaking to them yesterday they do not ask for employees to be qualified. At this moment in time I feel that I will need to cancel my membership with the ICB so that I can keep my valued employees!
Would be interested to hear what anyone else does with regards to this.
|
|
|
Hi All
My two pennies worth is this.
I do not see how the ICB can dictate the employment practices of it's memebers, there is a acute difference between employing someone to do a job and subbing out the work.
If Moobags systems are robust and he checks the work that is being done then what is the issue, I agree that it would be great to have everybody working within an ICB accredited practice as ICB qualified but there are always those who do not and will not study but are excellent at what they do.
With regards to the standards this is why I want to push ahead with the peer review system to weedle out those practices where they do not come upto stratch.
There are qualified members out there that are frankley clueless and I wander how they ever got qualified which I have raised concerns with the ICB over especially suffering the embarrasment I did re the interviews with ICB qualifieds that I convinced my Boss to do.
Moobag is the legally responsable person in all senses therefore if he employes competant indivduals there should be no issue.
The other point I would raise is that ACCA and ICAEW do not require all the employees or partners in a practice to be qualified the majoirty of the partnership must be qulaified in terms of the partners only with regards to the regulating body.
Kind regards
Stuart
Edited at 06 May 2011 09:23 AM GMT
|
|
|
Not wanting to get into the political forum but, to use someone else's words, "I agree with Stuart".
It should be the principal/s of the practice who have the regulation and not necessarily the employees. Of course if the employees want to qualify all the better as long as the standard for qualification is high enough.
I don't understand, for example, how a manual exam can be done on a computer. Maybe an online video would help me to understand it.
I have recently taken on a new client for self assessment. She is using her father to do the bookkeeping and, as she is not in a regulated profession, she is entitled to do that.
Let's assume that (I wish) I had a surge of work that I couldn't deal with. Assuming I had seen his work then I have two choices - spend an unacceptable amount of non fee earning time to find someone that I didn't even know, who I then had to train, or take this guy. It is, as they say, a no brainer.
He is, as it happens, a retired banker. At 65 (he) am I also going to say to him that he has to get qualified? No. It just does not make sense, it actually discriminates against those who may have been out of business for some time, for example mums who want to return to work.
I don't have any employees (am quite happy being a sole practitioner) but if I were to then quite frankly I could save myself a lot of time and money by just registering with HMRC, ticking a few boxes and paying their fee.
I had that option initially and chose the qualification route and have been proud of what I have achieved. But in all honesty I haven't picked up any extra work yet.
As a footnote - look at the legal profession. ABS (alternative business structures) allow non qualified personnel to be members. So even without a single qualification I could be a member of an ABS - the main criteria is that non qualified must not make up more than 25% BUT that is in profit share so it could be a solicitor with 75% and a non qualified with 25% making up the firm. It is essentially, the firm which is regulated with, where appropriate, members within being regulated.
Geoff
www.accountslegal.co.uk
Edited at 06 May 2011 10:07 AM GMT
|
|
|
Just as a follow up to my previous posting members might be interested in an email which I have received in the past five minutes offering outsourcing opportunities in the accountancy world.
I have copied below from their web site - and absolutely no mention whatsoever of regulation. I cant compete with this and I doubt many others can either. So we do need proper regulation but we also need more action to stop the unregulated. Not next year, not next month but now {along with a spell check!!}
Outsourcing prices
Junior accountant- From - £5.95 per hour
- Ledger entries, reconciliation, VAT returns and similar tasks
Senior accountant- From - £7.50 per hour
- Produce year end accounts, taxation and similar tasks
Edited at 06 May 2011 10:21 AM GMT
|
|
|
James, not at all.
If the outsourcing company comes under the regulatory requirements then they as a legal entity take full responsibility for the people they employ/contract and any action is against the business rather than the individual.
It may well be that the outsourcing company is considered to be an Accountancy Service Provider and has registered with HMRC as such. As far as I am aware, and of course open to correction, employees of the company do not have to do so since they do not have a controlling interest.
Of course if those contracted to the outsourcing company do so by way of a self employed contract with the outsourcing company then they need to be regulated.
But the essence, and back to the original point, is that they need to be regulated and not qualified. So Moobag could, if he/she wants to, resign from the ICB, get HMRC regulation for himself/herself, not take out insurance, save a few quid and carry on doing what may well be a very good job.
What we have yet to establish is any legal requirement for an employee to be qualified or a member of any organisation, and, apart from the ICB rules, none exists as far as I know.
|
|
|
James
I have sent you an email directly as it is, I think, inappropriate for me to post a response on the forum.
Geoff
|
|
|
I just wrote a long reply that disappeared as I was about to send it, so I'll try again, but more briefly!
I think there is a big difference between employing people and subcontracting work out.
I think that a fully qualified bookkeeper - level 3, or level 4 when it is established, especially if they are a fellow - who has their own practise wouls be unlikely to risk their reputation and expulsion from the ICB by employing people who are not up to the job and not supervising their work.
It's the supervision and/or training that I see as important, more important than qualifications when it comes to employing people.
Maybe the ICB could set up a program for employers, register them as supervisors, provide CPD for that (it's something I have done in my life outside bookkeeping).
|
|
- Fellow PM.Dip
- Practice Licence
- 115 posts
|
I think this is discussion raises an important point. When I joined the ICB and read the rules on practise licences I found it rather strict. However because I knew that I would not be taking on employees (for a long time at least) then I knew they were rules I could live with.
Indeed for one of my customers the ICB rules are irrelevant, there I work directly under the supervision of an ACCA accountant as a finance assistant. When I told them I was registered through the ICB for MLR they said I came under their umbrella for MLR. However I still accept the ICB rules since I work for them on a self employed basis and will include them on my annual return. For my other customer my ICB licence is essential, so I’m not saying the ICB rules are irrelevant.
My point is the ICB rules seem to be out of line with other regulatory bodies.
Mike
PS I also find it annoying how recently the website has started auto refreshing the page so you loose all the text in a message you are composing.
|
|
|
>
> Hi Mike
The ICB rules are not irrelevant where you are concerned! You may be subcontracting to to an ACCA accountant who may be overseeing what you do but you are still working under the terms of your practice licence which mean the ICB rules apply indeed even if you were directly employed by the accountant you are still bound by all the ICB rules including their MLR regs.
Be very careful what you post Mike you may have passed exams but you have no real world experience mate.
Kind regards
Stuart
>
>
|
|
- Fellow PM.Dip
- Practice Licence
- 115 posts
|
Hi Stuart
I did say “for one of my customers the ICB rules are irrelevant” but nowhere did I say that ICB rules were irrelevant to me or my practise!
Cheers
Mike
|
|
- Fellow PM.Dip
- Practice Licence
- 115 posts
|
Further to my last post I find your comments on my lack of “real world experience” both untrue and damaging.
I will accept I have only a little experience in bookkeeping, but that is not the same as none. Also I have over twenty years experience working in the aviation industry, where working to set of standards is a matter of life and death. I have brought with me this experience to my current role, the accountant I am working for has already told me they are impressed by my methodical approach and tenacity, to the extent they are prepared to invest further training in me.
As I understand it opinions expressed here do not reflect the opinion of the ICB. Rules, regulations and laws are always subject to interpretation. That is why opinions held by experienced Members and Fellows, such as your self are held in high regard. If others express an opinion which is not consistent with yours then I suggest you politely explain why your opinion differs not bat them down with derogatory comments.
Indeed when that happens it discourages less experienced members from contributing on this forum.
Cheers
Mike
|
|
|
Hi.
I'm employing one young lady as a junior bookkeeper. She is currently studying bookkeeping under the OCR which is not recognised by ICB.
I seem to recall that I received a phonecall from the ICB asking me whether I checked all her worked before it went to a client, to which I said yes, and my practice licence was then renewed.
As it goes, she will be joining either ICB or AAT next year in any case.
|
|
|
Ah, fair enough.
James @ ICB said:
“Hi Mad Liz,
OCR is recognised by ICB, however, as it is modular it is very hard to work out what the student has actually done. As long as they have all the modules it should be fine.
Contact the ICB when they have finished.
For now I think they have been registered as a student in training which is different.”
|
|
- Member PM.Dip
- Practice Licence
- 117 posts
|
Hi
It would be ideal to employ or subcontract to only ICB members. But it is restrictive. Whilst I understand the ICB want to uphold a good reputation and standards, the practice (principal) is in the best position to decide whether the work carried out by an ee or subbie meets the standard, not the ICB.
Is each case looked at individually at the moment? Could lead to some irregularities.
Perhaps softening the approach, ie not saying you will loose your practice license if your staff don't register as students, as per Moobags, but rather having a statement strongly recommending that practices take on only ICB members, and listing the resons.
Seems fairer, because the earning potential of a member of staff is often going to be greater than that of having a practice license!
@James You mentioned that the members of staff who aren't with the ICB could get via qualifications or exemption. As we know many are qualified, just have no qualifications and I want to be the judge of whether they are good enough to take on. As for exemption, don't you need the references of 2 chartered accountants? That would be very hard for them to get.
@Stuart
Perhaps you could start a new thread on the peer-review idea and it's practicalities? Would be good to discuss on here.
|
|
|
Hi Everyone,
I red this thread and it is deviating to a previous one title QUALIFICATION AGAINST EXPERIENCED.
@ Mike, having red your post dated Sat the 07th of May, I understand where you are coming from and sharing your "pain" I also understand why the forum is quiet. It should have picked up.
Mad Liz is employing a junior student, it is a very good news considering the economy climat.
My question now is: Is not discriminatory to ICB members being deprived access to vacancies??Yes some of the clients request experienced members but what about other members looking to employ and supervise the work.
Good week everyone and kind regards,
Nathalie
|
|
|
My question now is: Is not discriminatory to ICB members being deprived access to vacancies??Yes some of the clients request experienced members but what about other members looking to employ and supervise the work.
Good week everyone and kind regards,
Nathalie”
Hi Natalie
Personal opinion here .........
If the other members that could supervise the work were qualified at that level then they could look themselves.
I advertised a vacancy for my own job last summer- it didnt appear to matter what I wrote on the vacancy as essential skills which included all sorts of back up, we still received over 60 applicants, 50 of which did not have the essential skills. Therefore this involved me sifting through 63 applications, completing a skills matrix (so we could prove why we hadnt considered the person for interview or the job) sending out 80 odd letters due including rejection, interview invitations rejection after interview etc.
This took up so much valuable time and quite frankly I welcome that the ICB have the foresight to not put our potential clients through that. It could put businesses off using the ICB to list their vacancies.
Incidentally it was just an administrator's job for a very small company that we advertised, and the salary wasnt that great (less than £20K)
It isnt discrimination - its common sense. We are always seeing posts on the forum asking what level we can do bookkeeping to - this helps as well. If we dont have the grades we arent allowed to apply - simples 
Edited at 09 May 2011 11:13 AM GMT
|
|
|
Wow! This thread is hot potato at the moment!!
Just to throw in my two-penneth, I will hopefully be in the same position as moobag in the not so dim and distant future - only my 'non-ICB' employee will be my wife (she also won't be getting paid, but we'll ignore that for now).
My wife is qualified with City & Guilds, which personally I feel are not particularly comprehensive in terms of content or exams. Nevertheless, she has a good understanding of the subject matter, and more importantly, she has me on hand for any questions she has. So what is to stop me giving her the work that I feel she is capable of? It is my neck on the line ultimately, and my responsibility to make sure what she does is right as it will be my name attached to that work.
Not everyone who works in an Accountants is qualified up to the eyeballs, so i'm not sure our staff should be either.
As an aside:
James @ ICB said:
“
However, what is to stop someone joining the ICB, getting a practice license, then using that service you just pointed out, £5.95 per hour. Then 'reselling' for £9 per hour, making £3.05 profit for every hour and actually doing nothing.
"
This seems like an awesome business plan James, thanks!!! I can get someone else to do all my work now, sit on my big bum, and still make money!!!! ;-)
|
|
- Fellow PM.Dip
- Practice Licence
- 115 posts
|
James @ ICB said:
“Hi Mikeee,
For this accountant are you employed by them, or do you subcontract?
If you are not employed then you do not come under their umbrella. It is a common miss-understanding with accountants.
The only thing is that if they are with one of the bodies mentioned below you could accept their Due Diligence without having to do it yourself, you must have a letter from them on their letterhead confirming this.
However, you must still do MLR for your clients and you are still responsible for them.
You are obviously still responsible for the work you carry out on top of the MLR.
Hi James
Yes I accept it is a grey area. I was given the option by them to either come under their payroll or invoice them for my services. I chose the latter. Although I carry out all my work for them in their offices using their computer systems etc. In all respects I am treated like an employee but I am a subcontractor.
I fully accept I have to carry out due diligence (which I have done) and include them on my annual return. My point wasn't that I could, or even would, escape any of my responsibilities under the terms of my licence. But that it seems the rules imposed by other supervisory authorities are less strict than the ICB. Since they haven't asked to verify any of my qualifications and I'm not even sure they are recognised by their supervisory authority, so I'm sure for them supervision rather than qualifiaction is the criteria they are using.
cheers
Mike
Edited at 09 May 2011 12:55 PM GMT
|
|
|
James @ ICB said:
“Hi Mikeee,
For this accountant are you employed by them, or do you subcontract?
If you are not employed then you do not come under their umbrella. It is a common miss-understanding with accountants.
The only thing is that if they are with one of the bodies mentioned below you could accept their Due Diligence without having to do it yourself, you must have a letter from them on their letterhead confirming this.”
Not too split hairs, but I spoke to the ICB a couple of weeks ago about this and was told that as long as I could verify the firm by my own means, that would be enough. The firm I am sub-contracting too as of next week are ICAEW registered, and the partner that I will be working directly under is ACCA - both verified by the respective websites - which I am told is sufficeint.
|
