Administrative workloads in smaller UK accountancy practices

What published evidence tells smaller UK accountancy practices about administrative pressure, connected tools and improving one recurring workflow.

Radley Labs research · 11 November 2026 · UK accountancy practices

How are administrative workloads affecting smaller practices? Our review of published research points to a useful starting point: examine the coordination around one recurring job, then test a measured improvement.

What the evidence tells us

ICAEW's 2026 small-practice research identifies compliance change as a major pressure and easier integration as a leading priority for specialised software. These findings describe respondents' concerns and preferences; they do not measure time saved by automation. [1–3]

HMRC's agent survey presents a mixed picture: 27% reported increased complexity, while 64% reported no change. Difficult cases could involve repeated follow-up, even when routine digital tasks worked well. Its agent population extends beyond smaller accountancy practices. [4]

The National Audit Office's wider assessment found evidence of rising administrative burdens despite digital channels. This provides context, rather than a diagnosis of any individual firm's processes. [5]

Our conclusion: investigate the coordination around the work

A workflow change cannot remove an external obligation. It can help a practice examine whether the next action is clear, whether someone owns it, and whether information is being requested or entered more than once.

This is our interpretation of the evidence, not a measured finding about every practice. We have not established a representative number of hours lost or a guaranteed saving.

Consider one recurring task: collecting agreed client records until the pack is ready for a preparer. Treat it as a practical example to investigate, rather than assuming document chasing is your largest problem.

A practical two-week review

Define one job. Agree its start and finish with the people doing it. Describe what happens when information is complete and when something is missing.

Record effort and waiting separately. Note staff handling time, requests for missing items, handovers and correction work. A case open for ten days does not represent ten days of staff effort. Distinguish time awaiting the client from time awaiting an outside organisation.

Inspect the tools you already have. Check whether a shared status, a clearer checklist or a named next-action owner would be enough. Another subscription may add little if the underlying process remains unclear.

Trial one change. Use a small, comparable set of jobs. Consolidate requests, clarify ownership or test a supported connection between two existing tools. Keep the exception route and professional review visible.

Compare the whole task. Include checking, correction and implementation effort. Extend the review if too few comparable jobs occur. A faster first step is not an improvement if it creates more rework later.

Continue only where the evidence from your own practice shows a useful improvement without weakening accuracy, controls or the client experience.

Where Radley Labs can help

Workflow Blueprint can help map one recurring job across up to three tools and identify what to change first. You receive a map and recommendation; implementation is separate.

Where a repetitive handoff has been verified, API Integrations can connect two tools using supported connectors, with agreed mapping, testing and a failure notification. Custom integrations need separate scoping.

The outcome may be a small configuration change, a simpler checklist or a decision to leave the process as it is. No particular saving is guaranteed. Bring one workflow to a free Business Efficiency Consultation.

Sources and limitations

This is Radley Labs' analysis of published research, not an original survey, a practice audit or tax advice. Sources were checked on 11 November 2026.

1. ICAEW — research overview and methodology. August 2026 voluntary survey, sent to more than 9,000 firms with an 8% response rate; presented in partnership with IRIS. It covers ICAEW's small-practice population.
2. ICAEW — growth findings, published 6 November 2026.
3. ICAEW — AI and technology findings, published 6 November 2026. Sources 1–3 draw on one study, not three independent surveys.
4. HMRC / IFF Research — Agents, Small and Mid-Sized Businesses Customer Survey 2025. Telephone fieldwork September–November 2025 included 1,860 agents; qualitative follow-up took place in early 2026. Published July 2026 and updated September 2026. Qualitative examples do not establish prevalence.
5. National Audit Office — The administrative cost of the tax system, 10 February 2025. A system-level assessment; NAO did not conduct primary research into taxpayers' or representatives' compliance costs for this report.

Different populations and periods limit direct comparison. No client records were examined. Proposed improvements require testing in the practice's own circumstances.