I requested an online agent authorisation on 29 June 2008 and on 19
July 2008 I got a warning that the code would expire in seven days. I
chase my client but he hasn't received the letter. He got the letter
on 21 July 2008! I phoned HMRC and they said the system works! You get
the letter before the code expires! They explained that the letters
sit in a warehouse before being sent out and this could take three
weeks. I said that this is not how it should work and I was told that
nobody knows who decides these things and trying to get things
improved is a waste of time.

In article 
, 
PeterSaxton  writes
>I requested an online agent authorisation on 29 June 2008 and on 19
>July 2008 I got a warning that the code would expire in seven days. I
>chase my client but he hasn't received the letter. He got the letter
>on 21 July 2008! I phoned HMRC and they said the system works! You get
>the letter before the code expires! They explained that the letters
>sit in a warehouse before being sent out and this could take three
>weeks. I said that this is not how it should work and I was told that
>nobody knows who decides these things and trying to get things
>improved is a waste of time.

Many of my clients have not received the letters at all.

What I don't like about this system is that it is a separate application 
for each tax and they go to different addresses, and some applications 
get rejected for no logical reason.  So much messing about having to 
sort this out, chase clients and then reapply that I have gone back to 
paper 64-8's.

The daft one is corporation tax.  It gets sent to the registered office 
(accountants address) and so the agent authorises themselves and the 
client is completely oblivious.

-- 
Jon Griffey FCCA CTA
Hackett Griffey
Chartered Certified Accountants & Registered Auditors
2 Mill Road, Haverhill, Suffolk, CB9 8BD

Tel (01440) 762024

www.hackettgriffey.com

See www.hackettgriffey.com/pages/legal.html for disclaimers

In message 
, 
PeterSaxton  writes
>I requested an online agent authorisation on 29 June 2008 and on 19
>July 2008 I got a warning that the code would expire in seven days. I
>chase my client but he hasn't received the letter. He got the letter
>on 21 July 2008! I phoned HMRC and they said the system works! You get
>the letter before the code expires! They explained that the letters
>sit in a warehouse before being sent out and this could take three
>weeks. I said that this is not how it should work and I was told that
>nobody knows who decides these things and trying to get things
>improved is a waste of time.

It could be worse Peter. They might privatise the system and get EDS to 
run it :-)


-- 
Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Keyser Soze has just arrived"

On 23 Jul, 19:31, Edward Cowling London UK
 wrote:
> In message
> ,
> PeterSaxton  writes
>
> >I requested an online agent authorisation on 29 June 2008 and on 19
> >July 2008 I got a warning that the code would expire in seven days. I
> >chase my client but he hasn't received the letter. He got the letter
> >on 21 July 2008! I phoned HMRC and they said the system works! You get
> >the letter before the code expires! They explained that the letters
> >sit in a warehouse before being sent out and this could take three
> >weeks. I said that this is not how it should work and I was told that
> >nobody knows who decides these things and trying to get things
> >improved is a waste of time.
>
> It could be worse Peter. They might privatise the system and get EDS to
> run it :-)
>
> --
> Edward Cowling   "Must Go - Keyser Soze has just arrived"

It's frightening that they think keeping letters in a warehouse for
weeks before sending them is a good idea.

On 23 Jul, 16:59, Jon Griffey  wrote:
[...]
>
> The daft one is corporation tax.  It gets sent to the registered office
> (accountants address) and so the agent authorises themselves and the
> client is completely oblivious.
>
> --
> Jon Griffey FCCA CTA


You wouldn't do that, would you?  That would be illegal, surely.

--
Nogood Boyo

On 4 Aug, 08:46, Nogood Boyo  wrote:
> On 23 Jul, 16:59, Jon Griffey  wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
> > The daft one is corporation tax.  It gets sent to the registered office
> > (accountants address) and so the agent authorises themselves and the
> > client is completely oblivious.
>
> > --
> > Jon Griffey FCCA CTA
>
> You wouldn't do that, would you?  That would be illegal, surely.
>
> --
> Nogood Boyo

If we could bottle your wisdom Nogood we'd have a bottle with nothing
in it. Still posing as an illegal auditor :) ?

On 4 Aug, 12:56, Troy Steadman  wrote:
> On 4 Aug, 08:46, Nogood Boyo  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Jul, 16:59, Jon Griffey  wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > The daft one is corporation tax.  It gets sent to the registered office
> > > (accountants address) and so the agent authorises themselves and the
> > > client is completely oblivious.
>
> > > --
> > > Jon Griffey FCCA CTA
>
> > You wouldn't do that, would you?  That would be illegal, surely.
>
> > --
> > Nogood Boyo
>
> If we could bottle your wisdom Nogood we'd have a bottle with nothing
> in it. Still posing as an illegal auditor :) ?

"posing as an illegal auditor"?

Do you mean he's going round saying he's an illegal auditor when all
the time he's a legal auditor?

I would be more concerned if he was illegally posing as an auditor.