Reply to: Desperately looking for excellent ltd accountants - any advice?

[SueEllen]

Anyway, I thought the Bribery Act had outlawed these payments?

No they aren't outlawed under the Bribery Act but if you get caught like Age UK ripping your users/members off it's going to look very bad for your organisation.

This is why organisations should be open and say what payment they get.

[mudskipper]

Both IPSE and Lisa from contractorumbrella asked for specific details.

Lisa was more organised. She asked on these forums, told people to spread the word and her email address actually worked.

IPSE asked in an email that linked to the site and the information was password protected. The mailbox wasn't set up the first time so people had to email twice. That way they lost lots of responses.

There were technical issues..., however all the missing emails were personally followed up (not sure what the issue was, but it was possible to see which emails had gone AWOL)

The survey had over 2.5K responses, which lent a lot of weight to the arguments that IPSE put forward.

[Waldorf]

Genuinely, yes. We go through a DD process. We look at their customer feedback and professional accreditations. We've experience of working with most of these companies as accountancy or brolly providers for years.

We operate a fair and open tender process which you welcome to apply a next review.

You have not answered about the kickback you receive.

I would suggest that you can only be considered if the accountant agrees to pay a retainer and then a few hundred per client you refer.

Do you do these check independently or does the accountant supply the details. I think a good method would be for you to compile a questionnaire, by someone who knows what they are talking about and make several secret shopper calls but to the accounting staff NOT the sales staff.

Trouble with this is someone would probably leak the questions in return for a bung, so thinking about it a totally independent body should do the vetting rather than in house with the collusion of the agency and accountant.

Anyway, I thought the Bribery Act had outlawed these payments?

[SueEllen]

Fair enough as I never saw the request for details, I was rather busy myself..

All I saw was a survey that caused both myself and my sister in law (who used to do public consultations for a living and still does it as a rather expensive freelance consultant) took one look at and thought wtf.

Both IPSE and Lisa from contractorumbrella asked for specific details.

Lisa was more organised. She asked on these forums, told people to spread the word and her email address actually worked.

IPSE asked in an email that linked to the site and the information was password protected. The mailbox wasn't set up the first time so people had to email twice. That way they lost lots of responses.

[eek]

That statement is factually incorrect.

There were various calls for specific examples of how the proposal would affect contractors, and a few people provided those details - you can read some of those in the response that IPSE put together to the consultation.

Fair enough as I never saw the request for details, I was rather busy myself..

All I saw was a survey that caused both myself and my sister in law (who used to do public consultations for a living and still does it as a rather expensive freelance consultant) took one look at and thought wtf.

Let's be honest my opinion of IPSE has never been that high. It then started to go down hill when the name was changed, sank further with the consultations and disappeared with the new partnerships... Granted some of the directors are now people I trust the opinion of but personally its value as anything beyond ir35 protection is zilch.

[teapot418]

Yes, until recently I have recommended HL unreservedly and I still would for savers with fairly small amounts to invest. HL cost about the same as the IPSE scheme but (IMO) offers far more.

For savers with a significant chunk I suggest looking at Interactive Investor. I'm not going to recommend them as the rather hair shirt feel to them may not be everyone's cup of tea, but II are saving me over a £1000 per year compared to HL. For essentially the same thing.

If you're interested in this stuff, go and look at Fundmith's website. In particular, watch the video on the 2016 annual investor briefing. At 57 minutes in, Terry Smith (of Fundsmith) has interesting things to say about HL.

+1 for HL. Excellent UI and freely available advice. Not sure about them being cheaper though, they're one of the more expensive providers.

[TheFaQQer]

Ironically for their survey all IPSE wanted was opinions not the concrete details TF now wants.

That statement is factually incorrect.

There were various calls for specific examples of how the proposal would affect contractors, and a few people provided those details - you can read some of those in the response that IPSE put together to the consultation.

[TheFaQQer]

So, being shouted down and "put in your place" on multiple occasions doesn't count. You only get to kick a dog a couple of times, then it learns.

My last word in this thread.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that you've been shouted down and put in your place.

I've read every post that you've written on the IPSE forums, and I'd need a link to find what I would describe as a dog being kicked.

[eek]

So, being shouted down and "put in your place" on multiple occasions doesn't count. You only get to kick a dog a couple of times, then it learns.

My last word in this thread.

Don't worry. Their attitude to the T&S consultation was such that I had little choice but to do the survey to get the concrete details that IPSE's survey utterly failed to collect. Ironically for their survey all IPSE wanted was opinions not the concrete details TF now wants.

[eek]

If you don't make any observations in the right place, then they won't be seen. And your concerns almost certainly won't be answered here by anyone who knows the information.

First hand experiences of members are always listened to and considered. But if you don't provide details of those experiences, then there is precious little that anyone can do about it.

Let's be frank here. Clearly IPSE's new relationship with Brooksons was not discussed with anyone who knew their history and background.

Think carefully before answering the above as the other answer to that statement is probably more damaging...

[Fred Bloggs]

If you don't make any observations in the right place, then they won't be seen. And your concerns almost certainly won't be answered here by anyone who knows the information.

First hand experiences of members are always listened to and considered. But if you don't provide details of those experiences, then there is precious little that anyone can do about it.

So, being shouted down and "put in your place" on multiple occasions doesn't count. You only get to kick a dog a couple of times, then it learns.

My last word in this thread.

[Fred Bloggs]

Probably But perhaps you do too?

I'm not incentivised to. Life's too short to be bothered frankly.

[TheFaQQer]

The reason why you won't find anything on the IPSE forum is because despite me writing a long condemnation of the recent mailshot regarding the new partnership between IPSE and Brookson, I decided not to post it.

As you have sort of pointed out, my observations have never, and I suspect, will never be taken seriously at IPSE.

If you don't make any observations in the right place, then they won't be seen. And your concerns almost certainly won't be answered here by anyone who knows the information.

First hand experiences of members are always listened to and considered. But if you don't provide details of those experiences, then there is precious little that anyone can do about it.

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

But your view is only hear say anyway. It doesn't count.

From personal experience: 2 months, 10 emails, 6 phone calls and even a couple of letters to get clearance/handover information from them. As a consequence, contractors VAT return and RTI submission was late.

And it's happened often enough for it not to be an isolated case.

[mudskipper]

You see what you wish to see.

Probably But perhaps you do too?