• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Umbrella found guilty of deducting ERNI & AL

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Umbrella found guilty of deducting ERNI & AL

    Contractor takes #umbrella to tribunal for unlawful deduction of employers NIC, apprenticeship levy and withholding holiday pay. Contractor WINS case.

    #2
    Thats going to cause a few problems...
    "Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.

    Comment


      #3
      Ooh... Keep an eye for repercussions.

      I love it though - clients and agencies can't have their cake AND eat it...
      "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
      - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

      Comment


        #4
        This bit caught my eye...

        Are recruiters part of the problem? A common practice is for recruiters to unlawfully require contractors to use an umbrella company from a 'preferred supplier list' (i.e. 'connected' with the recruiter) in breach of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003.
        I've never heard this before. I don't know the scale of the unlawful deductions but we know the preferred suppliers list is very common indeed and have seen the evidence first hand on here.

        Is this something we ought to be exploring as well as the deductions issue?

        A well worded mail to the agency quoting the relevant paragraphs of the law should help them get out of the umbrellas they were forced in to and to go to ones they wanted no? (bearing in mind they go to a compliant deductions one of course)
        Last edited by northernladuk; 28 May 2020, 09:57.
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          #5
          Judgement here
          Mr P Weldon v 6CATS UK Ltd: 2410288/2019 - GOV.UK

          But it doesn't detail any of the facts of the case. It would be nice to know the exact circumstances.
          Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
            Judgement here
            Mr P Weldon v 6CATS UK Ltd: 2410288/2019 - GOV.UK

            But it doesn't detail any of the facts of the case. It would be nice to exact circumstances.
            I have a feeling that is absolutely key to the whole situation and without it we can't do anything. Until we know them then nothing will change.
            'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
              I've never heard this before. I don't know the scale of the unlawful deductions but we know the preferred suppliers list is very common indeed and have seen the evidence first hand on here.

              Is this something we ought to be exploring as well as the deductions issue?
              It's not really an issue - that is just a matter of right wording. Umbrella cannot deduct ENI from salary, but they can agree lower rate (and HMRC is fine with it) - which is essentially the same thing.

              I am not familiar with "preferred supplier", but I have seen this is happening. Probably also a matter of right wording.

              Ultimately the client don't have to work with you for any reason, so if you propose your own umbrella, then they can simply refuse to sign the contract.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                This bit caught my eye...



                I've never heard this before. I don't know the scale of the unlawful deductions but we know the preferred suppliers list is very common indeed and have seen the evidence first hand on here.

                Is this something we ought to be exploring as well as the deductions issue?

                A well worded mail to the agency quoting the relevant paragraphs of the law should help them get out of the umbrellas they were forced in to and to go to ones they wanted no? (bearing in mind they go to a compliant deductions one of course)

                The Agencies I have had contact with recently give the "Here's our suggested (i.e. preferred) brolly list" guff and when pushed, step back to "You can use any FCSA "approved" umbrella." to get round this I suspect.

                In their mind, they don't restrict your choice and use the illusion of the FCSA "approval" as cover to "legitimise" their suggested list as your starting point for selection - thus the lazy will just choose from their original list and everyone gets their bung.

                M

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post
                  It's not really an issue - that is just a matter of right wording. Umbrella cannot deduct ENI from salary, but they can agree lower rate (and HMRC is fine with it) - which is essentially the same thing.
                  But doing the 'right' thing the wrong way is an issue. Enough of an issue for it to win a court case surely. Lowering the rate might be the same thing but the umbrella has to action it properly which it appears they aren't. Hardly 'not really an issue'.

                  I am not familiar with "preferred supplier", but I have seen this is happening. Probably also a matter of right wording.

                  Ultimately the client don't have to work with you for any reason, so if you propose your own umbrella, then they can simply refuse to sign the contract.
                  But according to the quote I posted, this appears to be illegal and I'd be interested to see why and potentially do away with the preferred suppliers list which are a mess. It's generally just the FCSA cartel which might help avoid the scheme brollies but isn't really a fair list due to the costs and barriers to membership. It's interesting to see the number of FCSA members that screwed up furlough payments and will be even more interesting to see which of their members fall foul of this judgement. It could ask some very uncomfortable questions about wether FCSA membership is really meaningful anymore.

                  And just palming both items off as 'just right wording' is just your usual wooly bollocks as well. It's just wording when SC clearance candidates only are asked on gigs but it's against govt guidance. We shouldn't just shrug it off as 'just wording'. It needs fixing. How, I've not idea, but it needs looking at.
                  'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by mjcp View Post
                    The Agencies I have had contact with recently give the "Here's our suggested (i.e. preferred) brolly list" guff and when pushed, step back to "You can use any FCSA "approved" umbrella." to get round this I suspect.

                    In their mind, they don't restrict your choice and use the illusion of the FCSA "approval" as cover to "legitimise" their suggested list as your starting point for selection - thus the lazy will just choose from their original list and everyone gets their bung.

                    M
                    Aboslutely and, IMO, has always needed challenging. As I just said, if FCSA members come out badly in both the furlough payments issue and this one then the FCSA needs to sort out their tulip. It's bad enough running their membership like a cartel with a bar so high it's throttling their own industry so to be representing the companies that are falling short in both these issues is inexcusable.
                    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X