Starting off as a Book-keeper. Luthers tip - The Book-keepers Forum (UK)

luther parker · Veteran Member

Starting off as a Book-keeper. Luthers tip

Quentin Pain · Senior Member

Nice advice Luther, but I want to add a few points.

It is a commonly spread myth that you "have to be" regulated by an institute (and as you say in your final sentence "Be honest" I thought this was worth pointing out, but bear with me and read on...).

So, you can apply directly to HMRC for Money Laundering regulations (which is slightly cheaper than joining any institute - and free if you are only doing the books of your spouse), BUT you will find that the all important PII (Professional Indemnity Insurance) is likely to be cheaper if you are registered with an accredited body.

The bottom line is that registering with a body is value for money if you intend to do the books of many clients from both a cost saving (via insurance) and marketing perspective (you are bound by a code of conduct and therefore will gain better client trust).

The downside of this is that you will need to pass (and pay for) the exams. And you wont be able to carry out certain tasks unless you do pass the exams.

luther parker · Veteran Member

Thankyou Quentin,

Unfortunately theres alway's a cost, whether its studying a course or starting off for the first time, but I believe that joining a good institute rather than HMRC is being more professional about your work, the problem I think is that a lot of book-keepers do not understand 'Money Laundering' at the moment. I also believe that being regulated by an institute is cheaper than HMRC. It is compulsory that you have a professional indemnity cover and if you choose ICB insurance scheme, then I believe it also works out at a less cost, than if you join HMRC.

Luther. biggrin

Quentin Pain · Senior Member

Hi Luther, I think that is exactly what I said in my reply :) However, "believing" something is cheaper is very different from it actually being cheaper.

As you say in another post, be prudent and wary of people offering advice. I totally agree :)

ICBUK · Guru

Hi,

Thought I would add some personal opinions here : )

It seems that quite a few people starting bookkeeping as a profession are unclear on the costs of HMRC vs Professional Body for MLR, probably the Professional Bodies fault for having over complicated websites ? smile

HMRC is £120 (£110 for 2011) per year, but you do not get any support, guidance, forms etc

As others have said on this forum, they are paying over £200 per year for this guidance and forms for MLR.

So excluding insurance HMRC could cost you £320 per year (or you could choose to make your own MLR forms and only pay £120).

The ICB will cost £163.50 (Full Membership for 2011 with Practice License and MLR cover) per year, but that includes unlimited support (technical, legal, mlr), forms, checklists, etc etc...

So when you add to that the other benefits, discount in insurance, the other advice lines the ICB has, client referals, members directory listing, use of crest on stationery and website, members networking etc...

The Professional Body suddenly becomes a lot more value, but for less money.

The ICB has updated its fee structure now as people on this forum were saying they did not realise the ICB gave so much MLR support as part of its membership.

See the 2011 fees here: http://www.bookkeepers.org.uk/Fee_Structure/Fee_Structure_2011

Hope this helps a little

luther parker · Veteran Member

Totally agree with you on that James!

Luther.

kjmcculloch · Guru

add to that the possible changing of goalposts and the requirements to complete additional exams and the costs can soon outweigh the benefits.

Like so much, there is not a one size fits all solution. Each person must weigh up their own personal circumstances before deciding to go with a professional body or with HMRC.

Kris

luther parker · Veteran Member

Hi Kris,

True!, but with ICB your not on your own, but with HMRC you are!

Luther.

ICBUK · Guru

Hi Kris,

You don't think HMRC change the goalposts? biggrin

You were very positive about the changes to ICB membership on previous posts, what has changed your mind?

kjmcculloch · Guru

Hi James,

I don't recall saying I was a fan of the changes the ICB have implemented. Either way it's not as black and white as for or against. I think you'll find if you read my post again I said it's not a one size fits all it's a case of horses for courses. Surely you don't disagree?

Kris

ICBUK · Guru

Point taken Kris,

However, the ICB is not designed to register all bookkeepers, only the very best, it was setup to have the highest standards so that if someone 'jumps through all the hoops' they can be proud to say they are a Certified Bookkeeper.

It is the ICB's job to get the world to realise the difference between a bookkeeper, and an ICB bookkeeper, and for that a more defined membership structure is required.

Back in the late 90's early 00's education assumed computers would do everything, and no one would do manual anything anymore. The ICB (back then was still in the colleges) took the move to create a computerised path to meet this requirement from the colleges.

Now the feeling amongst many bookkeepers (and most ICB members) is that professional bookkeepers should do more than learn how to use some software.

The move to merge computerised and manual has been taken, manual examination is being replaced with a more practical one (rather than spending a couple of hours drawing t-accounts, it tests knowledge).

So now the ICB bookkeeper will be taught on bookkeeping software, but also practical bookkeeping knowledge.

It is a 'goal post move' but I very much do think it is for the best.

kjmcculloch · Guru

Although in theory I do agree that people should have a solid understanding of what a computer is doing for them in every task, not only bookkeeping, I do think that the change of goalposts for existing members if the wrong way to go.

I believe that there should have been 'grandfather' rights for existing members, or at very least a discounted fee for the exam. I fear it stinks of a "how can ewe get more money out of these people" rather than a genuine "how can we better promote the skillbase of our membership"

Kris

ICBUK · Guru

kjmcculloch wrote:
I fear it stinks of a "how can ewe get more money out of these people" rather than a genuine "how can we better promote the skillbase of our membership"

I have already been through this with you, the advisory council are members! The members meetings where these ideas are discussed are attended by members.

The ICB examination fees are the lowest compared to IAB and AAT because of the number of students it has, but still the ICB is not for profit.

I am sure you think the ICB has shareholders or something, it does not.

Existing members are treated differently, as most of them will have experience and can upgrade their membership without taking an examination. The ICB says to members to call or email if they have any questions.

However, it cannot just simply upgrade all of its members, it needs to make sure they are all at the same standard.

john Boy · Veteran Member

They do have those fancy offices to pay for! biggrin

kjmcculloch · Guru

James,

How presumptuous of you to assume you know what my thoughts are on the organisational structure of ICB. I have many years experience within the 3rd sector and and au faite with the not for profit model.

However it is somewhat remiss of you to suggest that as there are no shareholders that that means there's no one benefiting from the income generated other than the general membership. Next you'll be saying councillors and MP's don't skim off expenses. Well board members (third sector included) can claim expenses, and these can be exaggerated or greater than the absolute minimum necessary.

I am not saying all board members are like this, but many are.

Even above that all organisations, whatever their structure need to pay overheads. There are 3 ways I can see of doing this. 1, cut the overheads. 2, increase the membership numbers. 3, increase the income from existing members.

I am suggesting that ICB are doing 2 and 3.

Kris