Umbrella found guilty of deducting ERNI & AL Umbrella found guilty of deducting ERNI & AL
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 30
  1. #1

  2. #2

    Nice But Dim

    DaveB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    20,467

    Default

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

  3. #3

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    20,427

    Default

    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...

  4. #4

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    43,552

    Default

    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; 28th May 2020 at 09:57.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  5. #5

    Respect my authoritah!

    NotAllThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Far away from HMRC
    Posts
    22,834

    Default

    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!

  6. #6

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    43,552

    Default

    Quote 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!!!!

  7. #7

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #8

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Home countyshire
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote 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

  9. #9

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    43,552

    Default

    Quote 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!!!!

  10. #10

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    43,552

    Default

    Quote 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!!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •