What's all this then??????

[John Galt]

PCG introduces umbrella company

Latest news update from the PCG - they've appointed Parasol as their own umbrella company. Call me old fashioned but I didn't think that advisory bodies were supposed to be biased? An exchange of small brown envelopes in a darkened alley way do you think? They are a good umbrella company (well until recent probs) but what does the panel think?

[Pondlife]

I know. I understand that that there is a demand for umbrellas for those who are TRULY IR35 caught and who don't want to pay large sums into a pension but I am stumped as to why the PCG would not only be advocating but actively encouraging their use by having one of their own.

I have no gripes with Parasol as I've never used them but I didn't think it was PCG's role.

[Cowboy Bob]

PCG introduces umbrella company

Latest news update from the PCG - they've appointed Parasol as their own umbrella company. Call me old fashioned but I didn't think that advisory bodies were supposed to be biased? An exchange of small brown envelopes in a darkened alley way do you think? They are a good umbrella company (well until recent probs) but what does the panel think?

Call me cynical, but my own view is that on the whole the PCG are a bunch of useless tossers (see toothless iProfile response for an example, as well as the opt-in/opt-out fiasco). They're worth joining for the deals on insurance and have decent info for newbies on their site. That's about it.

[malvolio]

They're not that toothless - points-based visa changes, S660a, IR591 (what's that then?), IR35 dead and buried...I could go on - although I do agree with you over iProfile.

However, as we have seen from discussions here, some umbrellas are not as straight as they should be. So given PCG aim to represent all contractors, it is not that illogical that they have a fully ethical umbrella to offer. It has been suggested it might have been better to certify them rather than align to a single provider, which I agree is perhaps the better idea, but nevertheless they are right to have done what they've done.

[Pondlife]

It has been suggested it might have been better to certify them rather than align to a single provider, which I agree is perhaps the better idea, but nevertheless they are right to have done what they've done.

That's it exactly - They shouldn't be aligned to just one. They should have used the QA certification process rather than being part of the solution provider. Members expect impartiality.

[Robot]

Parasol

Looking at their website they use that word that no one seems to like on this forum "Dispensation"

“We have an expense dispensation from the Inland Revenue and this helps streamline the processing of claims and year end reporting”.

but I'm sure this is ok now that the PCG has teamed up with them

[Torran]

Looking at their website they use that word that no one seems to like on this forum "Dispensation"

“We have an expense dispensation from the Inland Revenue and this helps streamline the processing of claims and year end reporting”.

but I'm sure this is ok now that the PCG has teamed up with them

perfectly legal. Parasol make it clear that although you do not have to submit receipts for everything, you should keep receipts for everything.

[dmini]

Parasol still owe me money after 3 months.
They won't reply to any emails - though I know they have read them. They have agreed they owe me money as well!! They couldn't calculate payroll correctly, refused to admit they had made a mistake, until Rob Crossland (director) had to admit to it himself, and the thought of having to use them a second time was what made me go limited.

So if PCG is lined up with them I am very concerned.

I wonder if they read this. I wonder if they care?

[VectraMan]

Parasol still owe me money after 3 months.
They won't reply to any emails - though I know they have read them. They have agreed they owe me money as well!! They couldn't calculate payroll correctly, refused to admit they had made a mistake, until Rob Crossland (director) had to admit to it himself, and the thought of having to use them a second time was what made me go limited.

So if PCG is lined up with them I am very concerned.

I wonder if they read this. I wonder if they care?

Have you told the PCG? Maybe they'll help represent you against their own service.

The PCG's newsletters are just a bit too glossy for my liking, and a bit too full of smiling people. They're not an advisory body representing the interests of contractors, they're in it to make money, or at least that's the impression.

[Diestl]

What makes you think that about the £300 a membership organisation?