- 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!
Best Employment Services Limited liquidation 'loan' repayments
Collapse
X
-
"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... -
What a load of crap
Originally posted by eek View PostThe Liquidator of this company does (very occasionally) post here and a search of his posts may explain what is happening
In your case I suspect this recent post from Ian is probably based on this current liquidation
and the sad fact is based on comments within the liquidators Statement that you can find at BEST EMPLOYMENT SERVICES LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House) it would appear that your loans are now starting to fall due.
Given that the only expert we have on this forum I can refer to you is Webberg I would suggest calling WTT and seeing what and who they can suggest can help you.
They received the funds and now they want us to pay our salaries back? The analogy about a Barclays loan is so incorrect i don't even have the energy to pick the multiple holes in it.
Not to even get started on the single biggest issue of HMRC retrospectively making something illegal. How can that even be a thing?Comment
-
Originally posted by Noonoo View PostThese were not loans. They were salaries paid by an agency or employer to Best Employment Services who then paid them on. For the liquidators to now be demanding the monies back is preposterous.
They received the funds and now they want us to pay our salaries back? The analogy about a Barclays loan is so incorrect i don't even have the energy to pick the multiple holes in it.
Not to even get started on the single biggest issue of HMRC retrospectively making something illegal. How can that even be a thing?
Originally posted by Noonoo View PostThese were not loans. They were salaries paid by an agency or employer to Best Employment Services who then paid them on. For the liquidators to now be demanding the monies back is preposterous.
Had Best Employment Services been a proper / legitimate / compliant umbrella company they would have then deducted their fee and the employment taxes an employer pays and then paid you the rest after deduction the appropriate levels of income and Employee NI tax an employee pays.
Best Employment Services did not do this and instead paid a limited amount of money out the correct way while loaning you the rest of the money Best Employment Services had received for the work you did.
So your first point is wrong - the agency / employer was not your employer Best Employment Services was and the money Best Employment Services received was a gross payment before any tax had been paid and was definitely not a salary.
Originally posted by Noonoo View PostThey received the funds and now they want us to pay our salaries back? The analogy about a Barclays loan is so incorrect i don't even have the energy to pick the multiple holes in it.
Now I'm sure the original plan was for Best Employment Services to have been closed down by now (with the loans offloaded to a offshore 3rd party) but sadly Adrian Sacco failed to do that so the Liquidator has a very large bill from HMRC (to pay) and a set of loans that are now becoming due as the company still exists.
Originally posted by Noonoo View PostNot to even get started on the single biggest issue of HMRC retrospectively making something illegal. How can that even be a thing?
The Liquidators issue is equally simple - the liquidator believes you have borrowed money from the company it is liquidating and would like to recover the money to pay off the company's (Best Employment Services) other debts.
And sadly because of the way HMRC works and the way the money was lent out HMRC is perfectly within it's rights to treat the money as income on which tax is due and the liquidator is perfectly entitled to treat it as a loan that needs to be repaid (and that is an issue I've been aware of for over 20 years which is why I never joined a scheme).
So your 3rd point is as in accurate as the first 2.
Now I know you will disagree with all the above but it doesn't matter - as the above is a far more accurate representation of how you were actually paid and is the one HMRC and the liquidator will be using.
And I have a lot of sympathy for people who joined a scheme and are now in an impossible position. What I don't have is any sympathy for people who still don't understand how things went wrong, believe they have been hard done by and still believe and trust the words of a smooth talking con artist who in reality made his living by permanently screwing up your life to save you a few quid.
What you need to be doing now isn't arguing that this is unfair but working out how you may be able to show that the loans are invalid and that you don't need to repay them (and for that you need to speak to WTT).Last edited by eek; 26 October 2020, 09:04. Reason: added bit about where the loans are supposed to be.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Eek has quite correctly put the facts before you.
I am sure though that doesn't make your position any easier to bear, and so you need some support regarding this.
WTT is helping many people and so I would advise that you contact them for advice on your next steps.
Good Luck to all."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
-
Hi Dom, I have received similar letter with deadline upto 21 days.
Originally posted by Stevie1965 View PostHello Dom, can you PM me? ������
Mod note: Take care who you accept PM's from - don't be too open exchanging information until you've checked them out and they've given you real life references.
Hi Dom, Steve. I am new to this. Had similar letters.just wondering if collaborative aproach is better please.many thanks.Comment
-
Originally posted by Eboys View PostHi Dom, Steve. I am new to this. Had similar letters.just wondering if collaborative approach is better please.many thanks.
Also do it now as the deadline is very rapidly approaching.Last edited by eek; 27 October 2020, 08:09.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Best Employment Services - action to take?
Originally posted by eek View PostLet me correct this bit by bit.
The money Best Employment Services received from your agency was not your salary it was a payment (at gross invoice level) for the work you did for Best Employment Services.
Had Best Employment Services been a proper / legitimate / compliant umbrella company they would have then deducted their fee and the employment taxes an employer pays and then paid you the rest after deduction the appropriate levels of income and Employee NI tax an employee pays.
Best Employment Services did not do this and instead paid a limited amount of money out the correct way while loaning you the rest of the money Best Employment Services had received for the work you did.
So your first point is wrong - the agency / employer was not your employer Best Employment Services was and the money Best Employment Services received was a gross payment before any tax had been paid and was definitely not a salary.
So yes Best Employment services received money for the work you did but it wasn't yet your salary / wage and Best Employment Services didn't treat it as income (on which tax should have been paid). Instead Best Employment services paid the money it received to you as a loan (the Barclay's analogy) and those loans are now falling due..
Now I'm sure the original plan was for Best Employment Services to have been closed down by now (with the loans offloaded to a offshore 3rd party) but sadly Adrian Sacco failed to do that so the Liquidator has a very large bill from HMRC (to pay) and a set of loans that are now becoming due as the company still exists.
Did this occur prior to December 2010 - if not it is not retrospective as it was at that point that the law regarding schemes become incredibly clear. Post 2010 the law was very clear that money received for work (i.e. income) is taxed as income - so there is no retrospection and nothing wrong in HMRC asking for the appropriate income taxes on the money paid - so that covers HMRC's side of the loan issue.
The Liquidators issue is equally simple - the liquidator believes you have borrowed money from the company it is liquidating and would like to recover the money to pay off the company's (Best Employment Services) other debts.
And sadly because of the way HMRC works and the way the money was lent out HMRC is perfectly within it's rights to treat the money as income on which tax is due and the liquidator is perfectly entitled to treat it as a loan that needs to be repaid (and that is an issue I've been aware of for over 20 years which is why I never joined a scheme).
So your 3rd point is as in accurate as the first 2.
Now I know you will disagree with all the above but it doesn't matter - as the above is a far more accurate representation of how you were actually paid and is the one HMRC and the liquidator will be using.
And I have a lot of sympathy for people who joined a scheme and are now in an impossible position. What I don't have is any sympathy for people who still don't understand how things went wrong, believe they have been hard done by and still believe and trust the words of a smooth talking con artist who in reality made his living by permanently screwing up your life to save you a few quid.
What you need to be doing now isn't arguing that this is unfair but working out how you may be able to show that the loans are invalid and that you don't need to repay them (and for that you need to speak to WTT).
Much of what is said is good,
BUT
the 'loans' were not loans;
work was not 'done' for Best Employment (if it was what was it?) employees were using their 'employment' with Best as de facto (and I would argue, de jure), collection agents, only;
the money that was loaned was not Bests' but employees own money;
were the loans transferred to a third party i.e. do Best have a title to claim/sue, anyway?
oral representations were made that the loans would not be called in or paid (and there is enough evidence of this);
the loans were tainted by illegality and unenforceable;
Employees were defrauded by Best (well at least told misrepresentations regarding the arrangement)
Best were not licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to make loans and therefore any loans made are unlawful - they are an unlicensed loan-shark;
and the loans were not in the correct CCA format.
What can be done? A presumptive strike against the administrators in a court action FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CLAIM/LOANS ARE INVALID AND A SHAM.
Or else they are going to let it run and run and run. And divide and conquer all the little worried Best employees.
PS: Best were based in Northwich, Cheshire, with a Cheshire phone number. No mention of the IoM in anything they didComment
-
Originally posted by Best Employee View PostMuch of what is said is good,
BUT
the 'loans' were not loans;
work was not 'done' for Best Employment (if it was what was it?) employees were using their 'employment' with Best as de facto (and I would argue, de jure), collection agents, only;
the money that was loaned was not Bests' but employees own money;
were the loans transferred to a third party i.e. do Best have a title to claim/sue, anyway?
oral representations were made that the loans would not be called in or paid (and there is enough evidence of this);
the loans were tainted by illegality and unenforceable;
Employees were defrauded by Best (well at least told misrepresentations regarding the arrangement)
Best were not licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to make loans and therefore any loans made are unlawful - they are an unlicensed loan-shark;
and the loans were not in the correct CCA format.
What can be done? A presumptive strike against the administrators in a court action FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CLAIM/LOANS ARE INVALID AND A SHAM.
Or else they are going to let it run and run and run. And divide and conquer all the little worried Best employees.
PS: Best were based in Northwich, Cheshire, with a Cheshire phone number. No mention of the IoM in anything they didPublic Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.Comment
-
Originally posted by Best Employee View PostMuch of what is said is good,
BUT
the 'loans' were not loans;
work was not 'done' for Best Employment (if it was what was it?) employees were using their 'employment' with Best as de facto (and I would argue, de jure), collection agents, only;
the money that was loaned was not Bests' but employees own money;
were the loans transferred to a third party i.e. do Best have a title to claim/sue, anyway?
oral representations were made that the loans would not be called in or paid (and there is enough evidence of this);
the loans were tainted by illegality and unenforceable;
Employees were defrauded by Best (well at least told misrepresentations regarding the arrangement)
Best were not licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to make loans and therefore any loans made are unlawful - they are an unlicensed loan-shark;
and the loans were not in the correct CCA format.
What can be done? A presumptive strike against the administrators in a court action FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CLAIM/LOANS ARE INVALID AND A SHAM.
Or else they are going to let it run and run and run. And divide and conquer all the little worried Best employees.
PS: Best were based in Northwich, Cheshire, with a Cheshire phone number. No mention of the IoM in anything they did
And I could pull everything apart again but I really can't be bothered - but I will point out that Best (insert this week's variation here) was your employer, so the loans were loans from your employer which aren't subject to consumer law and the people who were paying Best (for the work you did) weren't your employer - "Best" was. And heck you even admit you were an employee with your poster name.
Also I've continually stated in the past don't publish your argument online as it gives the people chasing you money time to sort of answers to you argument before it hits court.
Not that that is an argument - it's an inaccurate viewpoint based on misconceptions of how the scheme really worked (which is little like how Mr Sacco described it - as he screwed up the implementation of the scheme).
Finally I know this is a pure UK case remember Mr Sacco screwed up.Last edited by eek; 30 October 2020, 08:59.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by Best Employee View PostMuch of what is said is good,
BUT
the 'loans' were not loans;
work was not 'done' for Best Employment (if it was what was it?) employees were using their 'employment' with Best as de facto (and I would argue, de jure), collection agents, only;
the money that was loaned was not Bests' but employees own money;
were the loans transferred to a third party i.e. do Best have a title to claim/sue, anyway?
oral representations were made that the loans would not be called in or paid (and there is enough evidence of this);
the loans were tainted by illegality and unenforceable;
Employees were defrauded by Best (well at least told misrepresentations regarding the arrangement)
Best were not licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to make loans and therefore any loans made are unlawful - they are an unlicensed loan-shark;
and the loans were not in the correct CCA format.
What can be done? A presumptive strike against the administrators in a court action FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CLAIM/LOANS ARE INVALID AND A SHAM.
Or else they are going to let it run and run and run. And divide and conquer all the little worried Best employees.
PS: Best were based in Northwich, Cheshire, with a Cheshire phone number. No mention of the IoM in anything they did
You may then like to have a rethink. You're currently flirting between the denial and anger stages of the change curve. You need to get it out of your system and get into the acceptance stage. You will then be able to handle the position a little better.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment