Another price rise at InTouch

[TheFaQQer]

I think some new kids on the block need to be added onto this list

Part of my criteria for judging my business partners (for that is what they are) includes their advertising style, content and location. It may be a good reason, it may not - but for that reason there are some accountants that would need to be very convincing before I would consider using them.

[d000hg]

You do most of the stuff yourself, or FA does should I say. I shouldn't there is much difference in the basic day to day service between the FA providers as the tool handles it. I guess the difference is access to the accountant, quality and timelyness of advice and cost of extras such as partners SA, mortgage letters and the like?

You could say the same with non-FA providers surely? Day-to-day you do barely any work unless you have a question for your accountant, or it's time for CT/SATR/P11D/etc. I imagine I'd want an accountant a bit like IT et al who uses the FA platform and therefore is more efficient? I definitely still need to be able to ask stupid questions

[TheFaQQer]

You do most of the stuff yourself, or FA does should I say. I shouldn't there is much difference in the basic day to day service between the FA providers as the tool handles it. I guess the difference is access to the accountant, quality and timelyness of advice and cost of extras such as partners SA, mortgage letters and the like?

That's the question - what else do I need / want my accountant to do and what price am I prepared to put on that. For example, some will charge for being the registered office, some won't, and some don't offer that service. Little things like an extra page on the self assessment (which some accountants charge extra for), might soon add up and make a cheap accountant ultimately no cheaper than where you were before. CoHo filing fee is pretty low, but some accountants will charge extra for making that return.

My concern at the moment if I was looking at a new accountant is how geared up are they for if / when MTD comes back. Because if they aren't ready for it then we're both going to be in for some pain.

[eek]

Part of my criteria for judging my business partners (for that is what they are) includes their advertising style, content and location. It may be a good reason, it may not - but for that reason there are some accountants that would need to be very convincing before I would consider using them.

I have serious concerns about some of the accountancy partners IPSE take money from - to the extent that I was happier to be unemployed for 3 months rather than work with said partner...

[eek]

That's the question - what else do I need / want my accountant to do and what price am I prepared to put on that. For example, some will charge for being the registered office, some won't, and some don't offer that service. Little things like an extra page on the self assessment (which some accountants charge extra for), might soon add up and make a cheap accountant ultimately no cheaper than where you were before. CoHo filing fee is pretty low, but some accountants will charge extra for making that return.

My concern at the moment if I was looking at a new accountant is how geared up are they for if / when MTD comes back. Because if they aren't ready for it then we're both going to be in for some pain.

Which would be why I would go for a freeagent accountant rather than one using their own tools - as you can safely assume Freeagent will be fully ready for Making Tax Digital (when it finally arrives) but there is a likelihood other people will be further behind..

[kaiser78]

They've raised their prices for the first time in two years, people don't have to stay with them.

No need for the petty comments aimed at the InTouch guy in my opinion, it's good of him to come on here and offer an explanation.

That is a point nicely put. Prices always go up and this is no different I guess.

However I continue to stick with my locally based, one man band, non-free agent accountant who does a great job for me each year

[Maslins]

You do most of the stuff yourself, or FA does should I say. I shouldn't there is much difference in the basic day to day service between the FA providers as the tool handles it. I guess the difference is access to the accountant, quality and timelyness of advice and cost of extras such as partners SA, mortgage letters and the like?

I'd imagine so. It's always tricky when someone asks us why we're more expensive than firm X. On paper they'd do your accounts, we'd do your accounts etc...so surely price should be the same? Well, no, as it's not a homogeneous service.

Generally speaking, when the client knows what they're doing, doesn't ask questions, and there aren't complications, a cheap firm will likely be just as good as a more expensive one. However, it's when perhaps something goes wrong/quirky, either an issue the client end, or complications due to changes in legislation, or you want a mortgage, that potentially you can get what you pay for. Or maybe it's not even anything complex, just a very basic query, but that still needs a staff member at the firm to be a bit more clued up than the client to answer it.

In terms of our costs as a business, good quality staff are expensive. Other than that, we pay a fair chunk for FreeAgent (of course), and the rest of our costs are relatively modest. Assuming we keep prices to clients the same, easiest way we could increase profit would be to cut down on staff. So have fewer of them, and get more junior (lower paid) staff, spend less on training etc. With automation, a lot of the time you can get away with that, but experience and knowledge are worth their weight in gold for when clients need some extra help, or the systems don't quite do what they're supposed to. A fairly clueless client with the cheapest possible accountant is likely to be a case of the blind leading the blind, with a world of pain brewing.

Also, some firms have a slightly higher monthly fee, but everything's included. Others will be a bit cheaper, but anything even slightly out of the ordinary comes with an extra cost attached.

[Louisa@AardvarkAccounting]

I was seriously considering Aardvark, but shame about the company you keep. I've been put off by adverts over a so called contractor "news" site that I don't rate much.

Thanks for your comment and I will take that on board in regards to where Aardvark is currently marketing itself.

However the service and advice you'd receive would still be top notch

[WordIsBond]

I'd imagine so. It's always tricky when someone asks us why we're more expensive than firm X.

I always thought you were more expensive because of the licensing fees you have to pay that famous Maslins guy for the use of his name.

[malvolio]

I have serious concerns about some of the accountancy partners IPSE take money from - to the extent that I was happier to be unemployed for 3 months rather than work with said partner...

IPSE "take money from" accountants who can pass a rigorous annual course on dealing with the complexities of freelance contracting. It's not exactly free advertising for the accountant, just a mark of commitment and knowledge. Whether or not they then fail to meet your standards is neither here nor there, and certainly not anything to do with IPSE.

But then I'm sure you know that already...