Posting journal entries with monthly totals

[happywonderer]

I have been using Sage Line 50 for almost 10 years and was pleased to start work with a company who have bought the most recent copy of Sage 50.

The company accountant had totalled the first 4 months of trading on spreadsheets which he requested I entered as journal entries, ie bank drawn totals, bank lodged, credit card expenditure etc.

I thought it might be a quick short term solution, but the accountant insists that this practice continue i.e. all transactions have to be entered on spreadsheets and totals to be posted monthly. He said it will be too difficult to audit if I post transactions as normal and too many mistakes can be made. The only items allowed to be posted individually are purchase invoices presumably to help with V.A.T. figures.

Is this standard practice anywhere else? There is an error message about large discrepancies in the control accounts and I doubt whether Sage was meant to be used like this. Seems pointless and tedious to me.

[brucedenney]

It is not a "Standard Practice" I have ever seen.

There is the possibility that there is some other good reason why you are being asked to do it this way, but I can't think of any scenario in which it would make sense.

The errors on the control accounts sound like journals into places where they should not be.

Sounds like the accountant doesn't know Sage at all.

Are you using customer and supplier ledgers?

[happywonderer]

There is a suppliers' ledger but no customers' ledger. The company has had Sage already which was only used to enter suppliers' invoices and cheque payments.The Aged Creditors report is printed to see how much suppliers are owed and the Purchase Payments are then reconciled with the spreadsheet's bank drawn transactions. Other than the suppliers' ledger, the only Sage activity appears to be the journal entries with monthly totals. The bank has never been reconciled - there is and will continue to be minimal activity here anyway, just journal entries for each month and now purchase payments.
I have been outspoken in questioning the accountant's methods, but with no success. He claims to have 35 years' experience in accountancy and his time already spent with the company also gives him greater credibility.
I hoped you would give me a rational explanation for this practice, and if you can't it looks like there isn't one. Thanks again for your help.

[brucedenney]

I think you are right, he may be technically wrong and preventing the company from getting as much out of running Sage as it could. However, he has control which is very important, functionality is worth nothing without control.

If he understood Sage better then you could have a more rational system I guess you would need get the management to ask better questions that would require sage to be used better. Could you get him on a Sage training course? I guess not, c'est la vie

[happywonderer]

If the Sage package was being fully utilised, the accountant would certainly be less necessary - control is perhaps the priority issue here.

This work could be classed as manual rather than Sage bookkeeping so, to avoid further tedium and stress, I have decided to move on.

Thanks again for your advice and opinion.