Hi

I have been employed in my current position for 8 months. Up to now I
have been putting all transactions for the last yr and a half onto
spreadsheets and generally clearing the backlog in order for the
accounts to be done. Missing deadlines for year end accounts and PAYE
returns has been the norm in the past and they have had the fines to
prove it.

My intention is to get the new yr (starting April 08) onto Line 50. I
have been running it from Jan 08 in parallel with excel. The year
ending Mar 08 will be submitted to the accountants on spreadsheets so
what happens on Line 50 prior to that is not important but more an
exercise in highlighting any difficulties in getting all transactions
accounted for within sage.

The accounts function of the company has been a mess in the past and I
feel that the previous accounts person was just doing as he was told
to do and not what he should have done.

I give the Directors a list of missing purch invoices that I require
to match to the cheque stubs every week. I get very little feedback
and feel that I'm considered a nuisance more than anything else.

I have been asking about various transactions over the previous months
and get little feedback, things like "ok we will sort it and get back
to you".

Now however it's time for me to get every transaction into Sage for
the first month of our new yr, April.

I want EVERY transaction explained and accounted for but I'm still
faced with "no we have no Cosco Purch invoices for the last 2 visits,
just put them into the books and we will deal with it if we get a tax
visit", or statements like "no I do not know what the blank cheque
stub is for,,,,, err put it as petty cash".

The company is below the Audit threshold but I cannot do my job this
way and feel that the Directors want a person to do as they say rather
than a good job.

I can't operate this way and feel so strongly about the shoddy way the
company has been run with regards to book keeping in the past that I'm
considering looking for a new position.

Is it me being too strict and feeling too duty bound and should just
do the best I can in the circumstances?

Should I Debit Dir loan acc with any bank withdrawals that I cannot
account for or can I allow a percentage of missing Purch invoices?

Maybe I could have condensed this into a few lines but I wanted to try
to get more of the picture across.

Any comments appreciated.

Thomas

On 29 Jun, 19:56, Thomas  wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have been employed in my current position for 8 months. Up to now I
> have been putting all transactions for the last yr and a half onto
> spreadsheets and generally clearing the backlog in order for the
> accounts to be done. Missing deadlines for year end accounts and PAYE
> returns has been the norm in the past and they have had the fines to
> prove it.
>
> My intention is to get the new yr (starting April 08) onto Line 50. I
> have been running it from Jan 08 in parallel with excel. The year
> ending Mar 08 will be submitted to the accountants on spreadsheets so
> what happens on Line 50 prior to that is not important but more an
> exercise in highlighting any difficulties in getting all transactions
> accounted for within sage.
>
> The accounts function of the company has been a mess in the past and I
> feel that the previous accounts person was just doing as he was told
> to do and not what he should have done.
>
> I give the Directors a list of missing purch invoices that I require
> to match to the cheque stubs every week. I get very little feedback
> and feel that I'm considered a nuisance more than anything else.
>
> I have been asking about various transactions over the previous months
> and get little feedback, things like "ok we will sort it and get back
> to you".
>
> Now however it's time for me to get every transaction into Sage for
> the first month of our new yr, April.
>
> I want EVERY transaction explained and accounted for but I'm still
> faced with "no we have no Cosco Purch invoices for the last 2 visits,
> just put them into the books and we will deal with it if we get a tax
> visit", or statements like "no I do not know what the blank cheque
> stub is for,,,,, err put it as petty cash".
>
> The company is below the Audit threshold but I cannot do my job this
> way and feel that the Directors want a person to do as they say rather
> than a good job.
>
> I can't operate this way and feel so strongly about the shoddy way the
> company has been run with regards to book keeping in the past that I'm
> considering looking for a new position.
>
> Is it me being too strict and feeling too duty bound and should just
> do the best I can in the circumstances?
>
> Should I Debit Dir loan acc with any bank withdrawals that I cannot
> account for or can I allow a percentage of missing Purch invoices?
>
> Maybe I could have condensed this into a few lines but I wanted to try
> to get more of the picture across.
>
> Any comments appreciated.
>
> Thomas

You are right to ask for explanations.

Going forward you should insist on custody of the cheque books. You
should write the cheques once you have been given adequate
documentation.

An accountant can only do their job if there are proper controls in
place.

"Thomas"  wrote in message 
news:27495d4f-723d-487a-95bf-6e75cdc37a7a@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
>
> I have been employed in my current position for 8 months. Up to now I
> have been putting all transactions for the last yr and a half onto
> spreadsheets and generally clearing the backlog in order for the
> accounts to be done. Missing deadlines for year end accounts and PAYE
> returns has been the norm in the past and they have had the fines to
> prove it.
>
> My intention is to get the new yr (starting April 08) onto Line 50. I
> have been running it from Jan 08 in parallel with excel. The year
> ending Mar 08 will be submitted to the accountants on spreadsheets so
> what happens on Line 50 prior to that is not important but more an
> exercise in highlighting any difficulties in getting all transactions
> accounted for within sage.
>
> The accounts function of the company has been a mess in the past and I
> feel that the previous accounts person was just doing as he was told
> to do and not what he should have done.
>
> I give the Directors a list of missing purch invoices that I require
> to match to the cheque stubs every week. I get very little feedback
> and feel that I'm considered a nuisance more than anything else.
>
> I have been asking about various transactions over the previous months
> and get little feedback, things like "ok we will sort it and get back
> to you".
>
> Now however it's time for me to get every transaction into Sage for
> the first month of our new yr, April.
>
> I want EVERY transaction explained and accounted for but I'm still
> faced with "no we have no Cosco Purch invoices for the last 2 visits,
> just put them into the books and we will deal with it if we get a tax
> visit", or statements like "no I do not know what the blank cheque
> stub is for,,,,, err put it as petty cash".
>
> The company is below the Audit threshold but I cannot do my job this
> way and feel that the Directors want a person to do as they say rather
> than a good job.
>
> I can't operate this way and feel so strongly about the shoddy way the
> company has been run with regards to book keeping in the past that I'm
> considering looking for a new position.
>
> Is it me being too strict and feeling too duty bound and should just
> do the best I can in the circumstances?
>
> Should I Debit Dir loan acc with any bank withdrawals that I cannot
> account for or can I allow a percentage of missing Purch invoices?
>
> Maybe I could have condensed this into a few lines but I wanted to try
> to get more of the picture across.
>
> Any comments appreciated.
>
> Thomas

If the job is getting to you that much, tell them what you think and then 
send the above the above to the tax office.

Seems my position is as I thought, and confirmation is appreciated.

Thank you both for your replies.

Thomas

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Going forward you should insist on custody of the
> cheque books. You should write the cheques once
> you have been given adequate documentation.

Are you serious?

If the directors are "trying to pull a fast one",
then they aren't going to agree to give up the
cheque books to a lowly employee, are they?

And if the directors were "honest", then what's the
problem with them holding the company's cheque books?

On 1 Jul, 11:49, "Tim"  wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > Going forward you should insist on custody of the
> > cheque books. You should write the cheques once
> > you have been given adequate documentation.
>
> Are you serious?

Yes
>
> If the directors are "trying to pull a fast one",
> then they aren't going to agree to give up the
> cheque books to a lowly employee, are they?

Maybe not but that is a good reason to walk out.
>
> And if the directors were "honest", then what's the
> problem with them holding the company's cheque books?

Because they don't provide adequate documentation for the accountant
to do their job efficiently - another reason for the accountant to
walk out.

>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > Going forward you should insist on custody of the
>> > cheque books. You should write the cheques once
>> > you have been given adequate documentation.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Are you serious?
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Yes
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> If the directors are "trying to pull a fast one",
>> then they aren't going to agree to give up the
>> cheque books to a lowly employee, are they?
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Maybe not but that is a good reason to walk out.

But what if he needs the job?  He
might have a hungry family to feed...

> "Tim" wrote:
>> And if the directors were "honest", then what's the
>> problem with them holding the company's cheque books?
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Because they don't provide adequate documentation
> for the accountant to do their job efficiently -
> another reason for the accountant to walk out.

The only people who should be worried about an employee
not being able to work efficiently, should be their employer.
[They are the ones who pay their wages!]

But the OP's employer *is* the directors of the company
here -- and they don't appear to care if their employee
is able to work efficiently or not.  Any other reason(s)?

On 1 Jul, 16:52, "Tim"  wrote:
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> >> > Going forward you should insist on custody of the
> >> > cheque books. You should write the cheques once
> >> > you have been given adequate documentation.
>
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> Are you serious?
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > Yes
>
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> If the directors are "trying to pull a fast one",
> >> then they aren't going to agree to give up the
> >> cheque books to a lowly employee, are they?
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > Maybe not but that is a good reason to walk out.
>
> But what if he needs the job?  He
> might have a hungry family to feed...
>
>
>
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> And if the directors were "honest", then what's the
> >> problem with them holding the company's cheque books?
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > Because they don't provide adequate documentation
> > for the accountant to do their job efficiently -
> > another reason for the accountant to walk out.
>
> The only people who should be worried about an employee
> not being able to work efficiently, should be their employer.
> [They are the ones who pay their wages!]
>
> But the OP's employer *is* the directors of the company
> here -- and they don't appear to care if their employee
> is able to work efficiently or not.  Any other reason(s)?-

Go and find somebody else to argue with.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Go and find somebody else to argue with.

Heheh - I see you've realised your mistake.

On 1 Jul, 19:46, "Tim"  wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > Go and find somebody else to argue with.
>
> Heheh - I see you've realised your mistake.

On 1 Jul, 23:36, Thomas  wrote:
> On 1 Jul, 19:46, "Tim"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > > Go and find somebody else to argue with.
>
> > Heheh - I see you've realised your mistake

Thomas

He's a troll who loves to argue. His comments have no merit.

Good luck.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> He's a troll who loves to argue. His comments have no merit.

That's just your opinion.

I note that a couple of weeks ago, you appeared to
be baiting for an argument - by making a comment
that suggested you disagreed with me on a point.
But then (when asked) you couldn't even decide what
you disagreed with, or even if you disagreed at all!!