I'm going to disagree with some people here.
'Accountant' is a very contested term, especially in the corporate sector. If you do AAT, you have a very comprehensive training, you can certainly be employed as an accountant, however you can not call yourself 'chartered' (ACA) or 'certified' (ACCA). You then have CIMA which is seen as the equivalent of the chartered bodies. These are seen as equivalent to postgraduate.
AAT is seen as the first year of an undergraduate or an NVQ level 4 (but is actually a very decent qualification). ATT is similar with a taxation focus as opposed to book-keeping or accounting.
Now, I'm lazy. I've got an undergraduate degree and a number of passes in the ACCA. It's got to expensive for me to carry on tuition and with exams. I am very clear with where I am in the syllabus. I've been appointed by a charted accountant to work as a management accountant and before that I was appointed as a project accountant.
The difference is that whilst I am not chartered, the roles didn't need chartered status for those jobs. Between my exams and my degree (not accounting specific), they made the decision I was competent enough to do the job. Clients have always gained copies of my degree and exam history. It protects them, it protects me.
Now if some guy has said he has a degree in Latin, then the employer will then consider him or her graduate calibre and look at his experience and exams passed in a different light. If it's a relevant degree he's holding, then professionally accredited or not, they can take some comfort that 'a 2.1 from Portsmouth' is going to have some value (or not).
With accounting and taxation, ethics comes into play. Most people don't want a fraudster doing their books.
It's quite a sly move to claim a degree, because he won't get black-listed straight away from a CCAB body. If I came across someone like this in my workplace, I would shop him into the rozzers myself.