Oh just brilliant!!!!!

Thanks Vince. A smile for the start of the day.

I thought it stood for fixed fee summary. No wonder I got strange looks when I presented my clients with a sheet headed FFS!!!!!!!!  

I'm looking at a supplier invoice sent to one of my clients. It's an invoice generated by an online system that lots of self employed / small businesses in this particular field, and I see a lot of them. As such, I expect to see certain things in certain places.

Where I normally see payment details, including account number and sort code, on this particular invoice I am seeing:

"Payable to: [name] t/a [business name]" - fair enough so far, that's what would be used if a cheque was to be written. But underneath, where the account number/sort code should be?

A 16 digit (broken into four lots of four) number - i.e. what looks like a debit or credit card number.

FFS!

Love it!

Vince, where do you find your clients? :)

This is something I mentioned very recently in another thread - but a good example of it hit my inbox today.

The client ordered something from an Amazon marketplace seller - not a particularly high value item at £5.50, but I obviously asked the client to obtain a VAT receipt from the seller.

This is the reply the seller sent to my client's request, which he forwarded to me:

i.e. they are instructing the customer to print out the order confirmation (which they are calling a 'receipt' - it is anything but!) and write their address and VAT number on it.

They are also clearly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding about the simplified invoice rules and what purpose they serve.

And as for their excuse for explanation as to why they want the buyer to do this? WTF!?

 

FFS!

-- Edited by VinceH on Tuesday 9th of May 2017 10:05:36 AM

Oh a big FFS!!!!!!!! Plus a nice short timescale to meet a deadline no doubt as well. Ramp up that fee this month!!! Plus offer to do that work and charge them nicely for it?

I hope by now that you have sent the debt collectors round!

Ha ha Vince.

There are too many Xero specialists. But how many are bookkeeping specialists?

One day there will be a Panaroma programme on the inaccuracies of bookkeeping records and tax returns. It will happen. I have little confidence in what a lot of people do for a living.

If the tax gap is as they say I'd wager that X% is down to grab and drop accounting methods used today.

I'm not saying that everyone who uses the cloud is cutting corners, just like I'm sure that not everyone who uses proper software is perfect - but on the balance of probabilities..

Vince I'm by no means in the same league as you IT wise - but, I can do most things with a computer, from building them to creating macros, together with being able to do my fair share on Linux. But I can not get the cloud to do what I want it to do.

I've tried all of the main players and they all each have their own issues:

Lack of reports

Lack of proper reconciliations

Lack of efficiency

Lack of flexibility

Expensive (especially if client is invoices/accruals)

I don't want to ever try to unravel client keyed entries which are incorrect.

It's too easy to completely wipe away an entry.



Anyway - rant for the day.

-- Edited by abacus12345 on Tuesday 16th of May 2017 01:12:15 PM

Another supplier invoice...

It has all the relevant information on it, and more besides.

The relevant information is the usual collection of things - their details, their VAT number, and so on.

The more besides?

A completely different company's VAT number and bank details.

It's a Netherlands VAT number, and the details for a Deutsche Bank account. It doesn't give the customer's name, but I could easily get that by looking up the VAT number on VIES.

These plonkers are obviously generating invoices by taking a previous one and editing it to create a new one, and forgetting to remove some information.

FFS!

A slight change of direction from daft things on (or not on) invoices...

Let's talk about Xero.

Let's talk about Xero in the context of a business on the VAT cash scheme.

Let's talk about Xero in the context of a business on the VAT cash scheme and how it handles credits and bad debts.

Last night, I received an email from a client who has recently moved to Xero. They're on a cash basis for the VAT, and they were looking at their VAT return and wondering why something that had been written off as a bad debt was showing up on the VAT return.

So I looked, and there it was in the outputs section.

Looking further, I found the bad debt write off showing up in the inputs - so over all, nothing was being paid - but being on a cash basis, neither of these should be on the VAT return at all.

Checking further, I played around with Xero's test company, set up on a cash basis.

I put an invoice in for £100 including VAT.

I then put a credit note in for £100 including VAT, and matched it against the invoice.

In this instance, both the invoice and the credit showed up in the outputs section - so again, it's not having any effect on the amount payable, but neither should be there. Given businesses of the size of some of my clients, that sort of stupidity would make already very detailed return reports that much more detailed and harder to work through if there was a problem.

And don't get me started on Xero's stupid approach to payments on account!

FFS!

I think what it does is a very simplistic approach when producing the VAT return, and treats any 'allocation' as a payment - so the date it uses will be the date the allocation happens, which (logically) will be the same for both the invoice and credit.

Incidentally, I had this little exchange on Twitter a short while ago. (Michele Playfair works for Xero).

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the sea supplier invoice file...

At one of my clients, I handle supplier payments - and last week, in amongst those suppliers was one with Bibby Northeast's payment details on his invoice. So I paid them - and recognising their account number, I added their email address to the system to send them a remittance advice.

I've just taken a call from them.

Apparently, the supplier in question isn't a Bibby client. He was one - but left them in January.

January!

The invoice I paid last week was dated 3rd June, and it still had their details on it for payment!

FFS!

 

VinceH wrote:

---

 can be a bit ranty, a bit sweary, and is sometimes an outlet for my often strange sense of humour. :)

 

---

Sounds as though you're talking about BKN.

Well, except the sweary bit.... Occassionally it's been difficult not to add expletives to a few posts, but over all....

I've just been forwarded a remittance advice that the client's customer emailed.

Someone is trying to be bloody clever - and failing.

Instead of just attaching a PDF remittance advice to the email - or even putting the details of the payment into the email body (which should be trivial from any decent accounts software) - there is a 'thumbnail' image of the remittance advice that is too small to read, but it's a link to the 'actual' remittance advice.

That link, though, is a tiny.cc one - URL shrinkers have their place, but it's totally unnecessary in this case, and TBH I consider them dangerous: They're effectively blind links unless they include a preview element.

That said, because of my computer/browser settings, I should be safe, so I clicked on the link - whereupon I'm told the link:

"has some public access restrictions...
So sorry, but you aren't allowed to visit that page."

FFS!

VinceH wrote:

---

An interesting (and at times amusing) read of your twitter account there Vince.

Yes - I probably should have included a warning in case anyone read any further, that the account can be a bit ranty, a bit sweary, and is sometimes an outlet for my often strange sense of humour. :)

---

 I quite enjoyed reading it.

Im very close to saying FFS when posters dont come on and say thank you. Or come on and only say thank you because they are asking another question! ]

You cant teach manners once they go past 20 years of age though can you! My black book is getting thicker by the day.

Lol John on the above - I am toying between not responding - Im not there to give thicko non clients any advice. Or just saying - Im sure your Accountant will be able to cover this off. Or just to put the heebee jeebies right up her syaing - its to cover you for when HMRC do an inspection!!!!!

Heebee wotsits it is then. heehee.

A little over six months after starting this thread, I once again have an invoice before me asking that I detach the top part to send off with payment - with all the important details on that part. Not the same supplier, though - so I guess that somewhere out there, there's an invoice template that looks like that. FFS!

That's not my reason for coming back to this thread, though.

It's VAT time - I have a few returns due by tomorrow, but one in particular sticks out. Or rather, the client does.

The return is the highest of the year, but that's in keeping with previous years - the July-September quarter is the highest, and this year it's smaller than previous ones. The client has rung me and asked me not to submit it yet. He wants to meet up later today to discuss it, because "there are changes I'll be making to the business."

So I have to patiently sit down and explain to him - and not for the first time - that the VAT return reflects the VAT due on the sales minus the VAT reclaimable on the expenditure for a three month period IN THE PAST. It doesn't matter what he's doing now or planning to do tomorrow.

If this was a first, fair enough - but the number of times I've had to piss around because this client doesn't want his VAT bill to be so high is way beyond a joke.

It's been a long time since this last happened, but in the past I've occasionally received (full time) job offers. I don't want to be an employee with a full time job because I like to be able to choose my own hours, but It's clients like this that make me seriously consider going nine to five. (And I see from another recent thread I'm not the only one! *waves*)

FFS!

Oh yeah, and I broke a tooth yesterday while eating a toffee one from a Revels packet. Bah!

I think 9-5 would drive you madder!!!! Despite being tempted myself.

Ouch on the tooth - last time I did that was reminiscing on a blinking curly wurly!!!!

Favourite revels - the cream ones (yep both of them!)

"FFS - why are folk so bloody lazy!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Quite.

I have another today - I've mentioned further up this thread, I think, an exchange system in the industry this particular company is in, through which they book quite a lot of subcontractors*. I have an "invoice" today from this system... except it's not an invoice from the system as such (though it carries everything it needs - so it's a legally valid invoice).

What is it actually? It's a print out of the web browser page showing completed invoice data, with the links across the top to "save as PDF" "email" etc. i.e. the muppet has simply printed the web page rather than click on one of those links to get it in a more presentable form.

When I grabbed the stuff from one of the directors he pointed it out to me - because it's screwed up. His initial reaction was that it isn't an invoice and he binned it. Luckily the other director pulled it out and double checked!

* I did a clean start on Sage at the start of this year - so the only supplier accounts at the start were those who had any outstanding invoices at the previous year end. Maybe 50. The number of supplier accounts now is just shy of 930.

 

"Oh so get you on the sage clean start - I did the same two years ago for a client and its looking messy again already - just too much going on!"

It was because things were getting messy - specifically on the supplier ledger, caused by growth - that I did it! It's now a lot tidier than it was before, and actually more sensible in terms of the order accounts are listed.

I have another FFS to post later, but it's to do with cloud software, so when I get round to it I might put it in that cloud thread that got resurrected a few days back.

Edit: When I include a line break, forum software, it's because I want a line break! FFS!

-- Edited by VinceH on Thursday 9th of November 2017 11:34:33 AM

I've got a headache, having been back and forth on the phone between a clients' supplier and that supplier's factoring company.

The supplier (henceforth "Numpty") recently signed up to a factoring company (I call them simply "Factors"). Fair enough, lots do. I don't like factoring companies, but I can understand why they do when so many companies can be a little slower than they should to pay their suppliers. (Though my client generally pays on time unless there is a problem with the supplier's invoice - I know, because I handle the payments and my system is super efficient!)

So Numpty has signed up with Factors, and my client (henceforth "we" or "us" etc) received the usual notification.

Numpty has subsequently issued two invoices. So when I came to pay them, that payment went to Factors. As you might expect.

Now Numpty is unhappy that we've paid Factors - and I've had to speak to him and them several times trying to resolve the situation.

He basically wants us to get a refund from Factors and to pay him directly - but Factors are pointing out that his contract means he has to put all his invoices through them, so they aren't keen on doing that.

And I'm piggy in the flipping middle, trying to resolve it. FFS.

Cake and eat it time - for all of a day or two then Vince, plus an easy lesson on how to get a factor to pull a facility when its only just been set up. I think they all try that one on at the beginning though. Just to what the factor does and refer him to his contract, or can you show him the letter you received from the factors? (whilst telling him to stop being a plonker - its bah humbug time so you can get away with it, dead professional isnt it!)