IR35 post April 2020: Choosing a legitimate Umbrella

[eek]

Who is "we" in this context? I see those 3 as fairly valid pre-requisites.

So how do you launch a new umbrella company given the first (and even second) requirements when the FCSA are claiming that any none FCSA umbrella shouldn't be used?

And why do you believe those pre-requisites are actually valid when what really matters is full compliance with the new version of S61O of this years finance act.

[Paralytic]

So how do you launch a new umbrella company given the first (and even second) requirements when the FCSA are claiming that any none FCSA umbrella shouldn't be used?

You do what any new company does - start small and grow. And FCSA can say what they want - its clients/agencies that decide which Umbrellas are allowable, and those pre-requisites will give them some level of comfort that the Umbrella is long-term viable.

And why do you believe those pre-requisites are actually valid when what really matters is full compliance with the new version of S61O of this years finance act.

I'm looking at it from the customers point of view, and that is the client/agency, not the contractors. As above, those 3 items will give the customer some (additional) level of comfort.

PS. You didn't say who "we" are.

[northernladuk]

You do what any new company does - start small and grow. And FCSA can say what they want - its clients/agencies that decide which Umbrellas are allowable, and those pre-requisites will give them some level of comfort that the Umbrella is long-term viable.



I'm looking at it from the customers point of view, and that is the client/agency, not the contractors. As above, those 3 items will give the customer some (additional) level of comfort.

PS. You didn't say who "we" are.

You are so wrong there. FCSA sold it to the agencies they should only use umbrellas on their list. Lazy agencies who don't want to do their own diligence have just gone along with it so the new umbrellas can't get a look in to grow enough to then meet the bare minimum.

No other industry body make sure its nigh on impossible to joinn their ranks.

FCSA is run by people that run umbrellas so why would they want anyone new joining. If they they do they make them pay for it so they can line their pockets.

[Paralytic]

You are so wrong there. FCSA sold it to the agencies they should only use umbrellas on their list. Lazy agencies who don't want to do their own diligence have just gone along with it so the new umbrellas can't get a look in to grow enough to then meet the bare minimum.

No other industry body make sure its nigh on impossible to joinn their ranks.

FCSA is run by people that run umbrellas so why would they want anyone new joining. If they they do they make them pay for it so they can line their pockets.

I'd argue that FCSA is not really an industry body - I'm not even sure it claims to be - it calls itself a membership body on its website. So, self-interest at its heart but they do seem to have manage to market themselves as being more than that.

As you say, lazy agencies have fallen for it. Would you really expect anything different?

But, none of that goes against what I said - I can see why these 3 pre-requisites are good in that give the agency some level of comfort over the stability of the Umbrella.

[eek]

You do what any new company does - start small and grow. And FCSA can say what they want - its clients/agencies that decide which Umbrellas are allowable, and those pre-requisites will give them some level of comfort that the Umbrella is long-term viable.



I'm looking at it from the customers point of view, and that is the client/agency, not the contractors. As above, those 3 items will give the customer some (additional) level of comfort.

PS. You didn't say who "we" are.

If only that was the case S61O requires more than a yearly check - if the umbrella screws up the payment the agency is actually liable for the tax due...

[Paralytic]

If only that was the case S61O requires more than a yearly check - if the umbrella screws up the payment the agency is actually liable for the tax due...

Agreed, it's not a fail-safe, but I suspect an agency would trust an Umbrella that has shown 2 years of history over one that is new. It's a mitigation.

[northernladuk]

I'd argue that FCSA is not really an industry body - I'm not even sure it claims to be - it calls itself a membership body on its website. So, self-interest at its heart but they do seem to have manage to market themselves as being more than that.

I don't see that. A body run by a group of large umbrellas that decide which of the compeition it lets in to it's ranks? Doesn't matter what they market themselves as, that's the bottom line. What other industry has this setup? All around I see spunky new digital start ups and people moving away from the big old firms. New products and features aimed at millenials and mobile use. Where is that in the umbrella world? Nowhere because they can't get any business and when they do they have to pay upwards of 20k to grow anymore.

But, none of that goes against what I said - I can see why these 3 pre-requisites are good in that give the agency some level of comfort over the stability of the Umbrella.

Bearing in mind a vast majority of these agencies don't even come near to meeting that criteria it's a bit hypocritical isn't it? How can any business start if that's the minimum criteria to even enter the market? They don't need a self serving body to tell thim which umbrellas are over 2 years old really do they? I believe Crystal were an FCSA member and that didn't end well.

[eek]

Agreed, it's not a fail-safe, but I suspect an agency would trust an Umbrella that has shown 2 years of history over one that is new. It's a mitigation.

It isn't - as will be obvious when I launch what I'm working on.

[northernladuk]

I'd argue that FCSA is not really an industry body - I'm not even sure it claims to be - it calls itself a membership body on its website. So, self-interest at its heart but they do seem to have manage to market themselves as being more than that.

Why if IPSE told all agencies they should only use contractor that are IPSE members and then hoiked the membership price up to 18k?

[malvolio]

Why if IPSE told all agencies they should only use contractor that are IPSE members and then hoiked the membership price up to 18k?

It's a thought....

Anyway, neither IPSE nor FSCA are recognised professional bodies who can offer anything official to support their members as being reputable and wholly legal entities. Until umbrellas are moved under the aegis of something like the FSA (not FSCA, despite the similar abbreviation) abuse of the market will continue.