Darren Upton goes down for 6 years

[DodgyAgent]

I don't think that Tina was ever a member of a professional body. Anyway, Darren had been struck of by the ACCA for other practising regulation breaches. Note that neither Upton Accountants nor Freedom Accountants showed the word "chartered" on their websites last year. Both companies are simply unregulated accountancy firms with no affiliation to a professional body.

PII probably wouldn't pay out because it's theft/fraud and not negligence or incompetence.

Even if he had still been a member of an accountancy body, their only sanction is to fine him or expel him from membership. They have no power to order compensation to be paid to clients.

As for regulatory failings - crazily enough, the accountancy bodies don't "regulate" the accountant's affairs with their clients - they don't do file reviews etc. Their main role is simply to ensure adherence with the rules of the professional body. An accountancy regulatory body would never go out looking for theft/fraud as it's not within their remit.

Not checked recently, but at one time, the main reason for striking off by the ICAEW (Chartered accountants) was not paying the annual subscription. That say's it all really.

At the end of the day, "accountancy" within the UK has no regulation. Literally anyone can call themselves an accountant or run an accountancy practice, qualifications or experience irrelevant. Obviously it's better to use a firm that's regulated by an accountancy body because then there's at least PII insurance, some degree of ongoing training/development to keep up to date, and the threat of losing their "chartered" status if they screw up badly, but the client is still on their own relying on their own legal action to get recompense if things go wrong, like in this case.

Is it reasonable to assume that any firm of accountants not affiliated to the ICAEW or ACCA is going to be dodgy?

[Nixon Williams]

Is it reasonable to assume that any firm of accountants not affiliated to the ICAEW or ACCA is going to be dodgy?

No - Upton was a member of ACCA and look what happened there!

There a several professional accounting bodies in the UK, the main ones being ICAEW, ACCA & CIMA.

I agree with WHA that the main problem is that anyone can attach the label 'accountant' to themselves, they do not have to be qualified in any way. Every day we see the results of new clients that have used unqualified accountants in the past.

There are even some franchise accounting businsses, that do not require their business owners to be qualified.

I would support a legal protection of the use of 'accountant', similar to that provided to solicitors etc.

[Churchill]

No - Upton was a member of ACCA and look what happened there!

There a several professional accounting bodies in the UK, the main ones being ICAEW, ACCA & CIMA.

I agree with WHA that the main problem is that anyone can attach the label 'accountant' to themselves, they do not have to be qualified in any way. Every day we see the results of new clients that have used unqualified accountants in the past.

There are even some franchise accounting businsses, that do not require their business owners to be qualified.

I would support a legal protection of the use of 'accountant', similar to that provided to solicitors etc.

To be fair, there are quite a few "Chartered" and "Certified" accountants who've caused untold damage to their clients in the past.

[DodgyAgent]

No - Upton was a member of ACCA and look what happened there!

There a several professional accounting bodies in the UK, the main ones being ICAEW, ACCA & CIMA.

I agree with WHA that the main problem is that anyone can attach the label 'accountant' to themselves, they do not have to be qualified in any way. Every day we see the results of new clients that have used unqualified accountants in the past.

There are even some franchise accounting businsses, that do not require their business owners to be qualified.

I would support a legal protection of the use of 'accountant', similar to that provided to solicitors etc.

What I am driving it is if an accountancy firm is not affiliated to an accountancy body then what does that mean?
does it mean that they have been discredited in the past? I accept that being a member means little but if an accountancy firm is not a member are they a Pariah?

[Signo_cypher]

Agreed

I got stung the same way as others...do you know the bank account he created was actually called HMRC. No how the feck can Barclays allow someone to create a bank account called that. I was in the middle of a messy divorce when all this happened, and Upton took full advantage. Im hoping that HMRC will still be pragmatic about this.
I hope someone rips him a new a$$ole in prison.

I couldn't agree more!! I am one of the affected people too, Darren took advantage at a time when I was extremely busy and I trusted his advice, that is what pi$$ed me off the most. I was so annoyed with myself when I found out, it was one hell of a way to learn a lesson.

So the question is, when he gets out in 18 months for 'good behaviour' will he stick to what he knows best and set up a new 'money making scheme' ?

IMOH he must have stashed away a lump sum...

[simondolan]

What I am driving it is if an accountancy firm is not affiliated to an accountancy body then what does that mean?
does it mean that they have been discredited in the past? I accept that being a member means little but if an accountancy firm is not a member are they a Pariah?

Means that either they didn't have the ability to pass the exams, or they couldn't be bothered. Having the ability to pass an exam and pay an annual sub doesn't of course guarantee that you will never do anything wrong or cost clients in some way. Having legal protection to the name wouldn't make a whole load of difference either I don't think - most accountants who get done for something seem to be qualified.

[richy]

Means that either they didn't have the ability to pass the exams, or they couldn't be bothered. Having the ability to pass an exam and pay an annual sub doesn't of course guarantee that you will never do anything wrong or cost clients in some way. Having legal protection to the name wouldn't make a whole load of difference either I don't think - most accountants who get done for something seem to be qualified.

Maybe I should be checking they have P.I. insurance, and that I could claim if needed when I choose accountants for my ltd co work.

It is a shame they do not have to all be chartered, and do not have a body like the Law Society. Even "Accountants Ombudsman" that they all have to pay membership of, and provide copies of their P.I. policy.

Solicitors are well regulated in this kind of way.

[AtW]

It is a shame they do not have to all be chartered, and do not have a body like the Law Society.

If they had you'd be paying £200-300 per hour and nobody other than member of such society would have right to do accounting, and you'd still carry the risks!

[SueEllen]

Maybe I should be checking they have P.I. insurance, and that I could claim if needed when I choose accountants for my ltd co work.

It is a shame they do not have to all be chartered, and do not have a body like the Law Society. Even "Accountants Ombudsman" that they all have to pay membership of, and provide copies of their P.I. policy.

Solicitors are well regulated in this kind of way.

Just because someone or something is regulated doesn't mean that regulatory body will do something until it's too late.

Part of the problem is people don't know what regulators exist, don't know how to raise a complaint, or they have to go through a lengthy complaints procedure before they take can complain to the regulator.

Part of the problem in Darren Upton's case was:
1. A loophole where he was able to abuse HMRC electronic systems and HMRC have no duty of care.
2. A bank that allowed him to set up an account with the name "HMRC"

BTW has anyone who has suffered from his actions got in touch with someone like Paul Lewis from Moneybox? As even the bank issue is one that needs highlighting.

[Bagpuss]

Just because someone or something is regulated doesn't mean that regulatory body will do something until it's too late.

Part of the problem is people don't know what regulators exist, don't know how to raise a complaint, or they have to go through a lengthy complaints procedure before they take can complain to the regulator.

Part of the problem in Darren Upton's case was:
1. A loophole where he was able to abuse HMRC electronic systems and HMRC have no duty of care.
2. A bank that allowed him to set up an account with the name "HMRC"

BTW has anyone who has suffered from his actions got in touch with someone like Paul Lewis from Moneybox? As even the bank issue is one that needs highlighting.

Agree,

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but Darren ticked every box of what one my reasonably want:

Member of ACCA
Recommended by PCG
Covered by appropriate insurance
Recommended by contractors on this site
Established in this sector

I sent no money to him EVER other than my monthly fee.


As for the account, I'm not sure it was called HMRC, when I got his main con email with the wrong account details, I recalled them as being similar to his account (Uptons) and when I checked it was an account I used to pay my monthly fee into. Now it can still work because (according to Cater Allen) banks do not usually check the account name in electronic transfers they just go by sort code and account number. This ties up with how he conned 'me' by asking HMRC to refund me as follows

<my co name>
his account sort code and account number.

PS At the time I found out (around 4 weeks after he did it) my bank said the HMRC can recall the funds from the wrong account, guess what? They wouldn't!