A reliable client approval workflow makes it clear what the client has reviewed, which version they approved, when they approved it and what the practice is authorised to do next. Sending a draft report by email and receiving “looks fine” may seem efficient, but it leaves room for misunderstandings when several attachments or revised figures are involved. A practical workflow does not need to be elaborate; it needs clear responsibilities, version control and a record that can be retrieved.
Not every review is the same kind of approval
Accountancy firms routinely send draft accounts, tax computations, management reports, payroll summaries and changes to bookkeeping records. These documents carry different expectations. A client confirming that invoice data is accurate is not necessarily authorising the filing of statutory accounts. A client agreeing to a draft payroll is not necessarily approving a change to an employee’s bank details.
Define the decision requested in plain English. For example: “Please review the attached draft accounts for the period shown and approve this version for the next agreed step.” If filing or submission authority is involved, use the engagement terms and relevant professional or statutory requirements rather than relying on a vague informal response.
Build a simple approval record
Each approval request should connect six pieces of information: the client entity, document type, reporting period, exact version, requested action and deadline. Add the name of the approver and a dated record of the response. It should be possible for someone covering the account to understand what happened without searching through a staff member’s inbox.
| Field | What to record | Common problem avoided |
|---|---|---|
| Entity and period | Legal entity, dates and document type | Approval attached to the wrong company or year |
| Version | Revision identifier and stable copy | Old figures approved after later amendments |
| Decision | Approved, rejected, questions outstanding | “Seen” treated as “approved” |
| Approver | Authorised contact and response date | Unclear permission or missing audit trail |
| Next action | Named responsible team member | Work left idle after client reply |
Make the client-facing request easy to understand
Lead with the decision, not a lengthy technical introduction. Attach or link to one clearly identified draft and put questions in a short list. Explain what has changed since the previous version, particularly where the changes affect tax, liabilities, cash flow or disclosures. Avoid implying that the client has signed off material they have not seen.
It also helps to distinguish the person who can supply data from the person authorised to approve it. The bookkeeper may upload invoices; a director, partner or designated client representative may need to approve an agreed submission. Confirm this in the engagement process rather than choosing an approver based on who replies fastest.
Use software to support evidence, not to create it artificially
Different platforms offer client collaboration, document sharing and workflow features, but the approval rules should exist independently of the software. A button marked “complete” is not automatically a legally or professionally sufficient sign-off. Review the product’s permissions, activity history and ability to retrieve an immutable copy of what the client saw.
When selecting a practice platform, consider how FreeAgent and Sage Accounting fit different UK client needs and whether the chosen tools support an efficient client handoff. Software selection is relevant, but the procedure must work even when one system has an outage.
Prevent version confusion
Suppose a client receives draft accounts on Monday and a corrected set on Wednesday. On Thursday they reply to Monday’s email, “Approved.” The firm must not silently attach that response to Wednesday’s figures. Instead, acknowledge the old approval, identify the revised document and ask for an explicit response to the latest version where required.
Use version labels that mean something within the practice, and retain the superseded copy so the audit trail explains the chronology. A reliable naming convention might include entity, period, document type and revision; personal names or dates alone are insufficient when several drafts are exchanged on the same day.
What happens when the deadline is approaching?
Agree internal cut-off dates that allow time for review and correction. An automated reminder can help, but it should not replace judgement about high-risk work, outstanding questions or urgent changes. Escalate a missing response to the named responsible person; do not treat silence as permission to file unless the specific applicable framework genuinely allows it.
Where information depends on scanned invoices and expense documents, the quality of initial capture affects the review. The comparison of Dext and AutoEntry for invoice capture is useful when evaluating how accurately material moves into the accounting workflow before anyone is asked to approve results.
Keep a practical exception process
- Wrong recipient: stop the request and assess whether confidential information has been disclosed to an unauthorised person.
- Client disputes a figure: pause approval, record the question and prepare a revised version if necessary.
- Approver absent: use a pre-agreed substitute with appropriate authority; do not invent delegation.
- Multiple conflicting replies: establish which authorised instruction governs before acting.
- System unavailable: use the documented secure fallback and transfer evidence to the official record later.
How to test the workflow before rolling it out
- Choose one recurring document type and identify all handoffs.
- Define the required approval evidence and acceptable response methods.
- Test a clean approval, a rejected draft and a revised draft approved from an old email.
- Confirm that another employee can retrieve the decision and identify the latest version.
- Check what the client sees on a phone, where many approvals are actually read.
- Document lessons before expanding to tax, accounts and payroll workflows.
For practices serving clients across different accounting products, do not force every client to use the same bookkeeping interface. Compare how Xero and QuickBooks Online support UK practice workflows and build a consistent approval standard around the differing systems.
Frequently asked questions
Is an email saying “approved” enough?
That depends on the document, authority, engagement terms and applicable requirements. At minimum, the message should be clearly linked to an identifiable version and decision. Where a formal signature or another method is required, an informal email does not replace it.
Should clients approve every bookkeeping entry?
Not normally as a blanket rule. Decide what information the client must verify, what the practice checks and which outputs require explicit approval. Excessive sign-off requests can encourage unthinking responses.
What should be retained?
Keep the approved version, the approval evidence, relevant questions and subsequent changes in line with the practice’s retention obligations and data-protection policies. Access should be limited to those with a legitimate need.
A good approval process reduces ambiguity rather than adding paperwork. Every participant should know which version is current, what they are being asked to decide and what happens after that decision.