Operations
Part of Accounting services operations: one catalogue, one deadline register, traceable work
Accounting services quality checklist: red, amber or green
Use this accounting services quality checklist to score files red, amber or green across client authority, records, review, submission, security and closure.
Use this accounting services quality checklist on a sample of completed files and live work, or when assessing an accounting or bookkeeping service provider you are considering from the accountantscout.co.uk directory. It is a control prompt, not a substitute for the law, reporting framework, tax guidance, supervisor rules or professional standards applying to a particular engagement.
How this fits the directory
The accountantscout.co.uk directory lists accounting and bookkeeping services. Use this checklist to test the evidence behind a listing before you appoint or renew a provider: ask for the authority records, review evidence, submission records, data controls and closure documents described below. The checklist does not rank directory listings; it gives you questions and evidence to request.
What to take away
- Score each file red, amber or green so the review produces a comparable rating.
- A signed checklist is weak evidence if every box is marked yes, so useful review must find exceptions.
- Review depth should follow risk rather than file size, with significant and unusual transactions given explicit attention.
- Retain submission timing separately because acceptance does not by itself establish timely delivery.
- Trend recurring causes separately from isolated errors, but escalate a single serious failure immediately.
Scoring scale: red means a critical control failed; amber means evidence is incomplete or an exception is unresolved; green means the evidence supports the conclusion. A file with any red cannot be rated green overall.
Before you act
- Sample both clean and difficult completed files and live work.
- Confirm client and agent authorities cover the action being taken, including HMRC 64-8 or the Agent Services Account, and Companies House authentication code where relevant.
- Check the final client version matches the reviewed version.
- Verify the retained submission is demonstrably the sent version.
- Record finding, consequence, root cause, owner and retest date.
- Rotate reviewers and include declined work and withdrawals.
Client, authority and scope
- The contracting entity and customer entities are unambiguous.
- Applicable acceptance, identity, AML work under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and the relevant supervisory body, conflict and independence work is complete.
- The engagement version, services, periods, responsibilities and fees are recorded.
- Client and agent authorities cover the action being taken, evidenced by HMRC 64-8 or the Agent Services Account, and by Companies House authentication code for company filings where required.
- Staff never request a client's personal HMRC sign-in details.
- Out-of-scope work is identified, priced and approved before proceeding where practicable.
HMRC's current agent standard addresses integrity, competence, supported figures, records, communications and secure access for its population. For members in England and Wales, ICAEW and ACCA standards also apply alongside the HMRC agent standard. Map relevant points to evidence rather than merely stating that the practice follows the standard.
Client, Authority and Scope Checks
- Contracting and customer entities unambiguous
- Acceptance, identity, AML, conflict complete
- Engagement version, services, periods, fees recorded
- Client and agent authorities cover action
- Never request client's personal HMRC sign-in
- Out-of-scope work priced and approved
Records and preparation
- Every source belongs to the correct entity and period.
- Completeness checks cover expected banks, sales, purchases, payroll and other records.
- Duplicates, gaps and unexplained movements appear on an exception list.
- Bank and control accounts reconcile to independent evidence.
- Journals identify preparer, date, source, reason and approval.
- Estimates and technical positions record their facts, source and uncertainty.
- Prior-period differences are explained rather than overwritten.
Review, approval and file evidence
- The assigned reviewer has competence for the task and customer complexity.
- Review depth follows risk, not only file size.
- Significant and unusual transactions receive explicit attention.
- Queries show resolution, evidence and who closed them.
- Corrections remain visible in the history.
- The final client version matches the reviewed version.
- Approval comes from a person with current authority.
Submission and deadline evidence
- The deadline is taken from a current authoritative source.
- Internal cut-offs allow time for review and correction.
- The correct entity, period, service and authorised account are used.
- The retained submission is byte-for-byte or otherwise demonstrably the sent version.
- Receipt, response and acknowledgement evidence is stored.
- A rejection has an owner, consequence and recovery deadline.
For company filings, consult the live Companies House software guidance. Its explanation that acceptance does not by itself establish timely delivery is a useful reason to retain submission timing separately.
Data, access and system control
- Named accounts and least privilege are in use.
- Leavers and role changes are reflected promptly.
- Confidential records use approved transfer and storage routes.
- Personal information under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 has a documented purpose, role, retention and rights route.
- Supplier access and subprocessors have been assessed.
- Backups and recovery have been exercised.
- Incidents can be escalated without relying on the unavailable system.
The ICO's controller and processor material explains why data roles follow real decisions under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Do not let an engagement template or software label decide the allocation automatically.
Communication and closure
- Advice states facts, assumptions, options, uncertainty and required decisions.
- Marketing promises do not exceed the delivered scope.
- Relevant client communications and approvals are retained.
- Complaints, errors and near misses have accountable owners.
- Agreed outputs and records reach the client securely.
- Next actions, deadlines and retention dates are set.
- Terminated work includes a controlled handover and access removal.
Illustrative worked example: a file is green on client authority, amber on records because one bank account is unreconciled, and red on review because approval came from a person without current authority. Overall rating: red until the approval is corrected and the bank reconciliation is evidenced.
Useful quality review finds exceptions, explains judgement and changes the operation when failure repeats. Document the sample population, selection method and period.
Common questions
What should a quality review record for each finding?
Use the Before you act checklist for the record fields. Quality reporting should preserve the underlying file references and avoid naming clients beyond the people who need access.
How should a reviewer decide how deep to go?
Review depth follows risk, not only file size. The assigned reviewer needs competence for the task and customer complexity. Significant and unusual transactions receive explicit attention, queries show resolution, evidence and who closed them, and corrections remain visible in the history. Approval must come from a person with current authority.
Why retain submission timing separately from acceptance?
Companies House software guidance explains that acceptance does not by itself establish timely delivery, so retain submission timing separately. Take the deadline from a current authoritative source, set internal cut-offs that allow time for review and correction, and store receipt, response and acknowledgement evidence. A rejection needs an owner, consequence and recovery deadline.
