+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    17,813
    Thanks (Given)
    462
    Thanks (Received)
    952
    Likes (Given)
    4021
    Likes (Received)
    2638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mike67 View Post
    Interested in your view Cojak (as clearly the forum expert here!) on the effect of opting out of the Conduct Regulations on this scenario.

    My view is that the prohibition on charging fees is contained in the primary legislation, the Employment Agencies Act 1973. The Conduct Regulations support the Act, but whilst you could opt out working through an umbrella company you can only opt out of the Regulations, you cannot opt out of the Act.

    Therefore there would be no way to charge fees directly or indirectly regardless of opt out status.

    Do you agree?
    My view is that the opt-out is confused enough in itself (we have two opposing views from BIS), but this legislation is different and you cannot contract your way out of legality and into illegality. So I would agree with you.

    BUT all of this discussion is dependant on the enforcement of this dusty little aspect of the law, and after that even if found guilty the maximum fine is only £400.

    My ultimate opinion is that dodgy companies can ride roughshod over this legislation without a care in the world.

  2. #12

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    26,334
    Thanks (Given)
    1138
    Thanks (Received)
    936
    Likes (Given)
    4265
    Likes (Received)
    3780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cojak View Post
    My view is that the opt-out is confused enough in itself (we have two opposing views from BIS), but this legislation is different and you cannot contract your way out of legality and into illegality. So I would agree with you.

    BUT all of this discussion is dependant on the enforcement of this dusty little aspect of the law, and after that even if found guilty the maximum fine is only £400.

    My ultimate opinion is that dodgy companies can ride roughshod over this legislation without a care in the world.
    The trick is to find other things the dodgy companies are doing wrong so they can be raided. Having your records and computers taken means you will lose more money than just what the fine is.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  3. #13

    More time posting than coding

    lucycontractorumbrella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colchester, Essex
    Posts
    377
    Thanks (Given)
    42
    Thanks (Received)
    38
    Likes (Given)
    223
    Likes (Received)
    83

    Default

    That is horrendous to charge it on top of the margin to the contractor. The agencies and brollies can have a business arrangement for referrals, but a lot of the respectable agencies have clauses within the B2B contract that state that the brolly cannot charge this on to the contractor.
    Personally, I think the decision on what brolly to use should be a choice for the contractor, with the agency then performing due diligence on the brolly to protect them.
    Just watching what I say

    Connect with me on LinkedIn

    Follow us on Twitter.

  4. #14

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    London
    Posts
    38
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cojak View Post
    BUT all of this discussion is dependant on the enforcement of this dusty little aspect of the law, and after that even if found guilty the maximum fine is only £400.
    The maximum fine in the original legislation was £400. But it was amended in 1982 to "not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale" which is £5,000. And that would be £5,000 per offence, so if they are doing this with 100 contractors, that would be potentially £500,000 which makes it more interesting.

  5. #15

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    17,813
    Thanks (Given)
    462
    Thanks (Received)
    952
    Likes (Given)
    4021
    Likes (Received)
    2638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mike67 View Post
    The maximum fine in the original legislation was £400. But it was amended in 1982 to "not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale" which is £5,000. And that would be £5,000 per offence, so if they are doing this with 100 contractors, that would be potentially £500,000 which makes it more interesting.
    Good to know, but my point on enforcement still stands.

  6. #16

    Super poster

    Fred Bloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Thanks (Given)
    4
    Thanks (Received)
    73
    Likes (Given)
    50
    Likes (Received)
    247

    Default

    Setting aside all the scammy fake brollies, this has to be the worst abuse in the business I've ever seen. Are the REC able to take action? (I guess not?)
    Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
    Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

  7. #17

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32,823
    Thanks (Given)
    132
    Thanks (Received)
    1287
    Likes (Given)
    1684
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Anyone contacted the two parties and invited them to respond to this thread?
    'CUK forum personality of 2011' - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  8. #18

    More time posting than coding

    lucycontractorumbrella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colchester, Essex
    Posts
    377
    Thanks (Given)
    42
    Thanks (Received)
    38
    Likes (Given)
    223
    Likes (Received)
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    Anyone contacted the two parties and invited them to respond to this thread?
    I would guess that the only people to ask is the brolly - the agency can simply ask for it - it is likely to be the brolly that is making the decision to charge it on.
    Just watching what I say

    Connect with me on LinkedIn

    Follow us on Twitter.

  9. #19

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32,823
    Thanks (Given)
    132
    Thanks (Received)
    1287
    Likes (Given)
    1684
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lucycontractorumbrella View Post
    I would guess that the only people to ask is the brolly - the agency can simply ask for it - it is likely to be the brolly that is making the decision to charge it on.
    Absolutely. I just thought seems neither of them are coming out of this smelling of roses I thought one of them might come on and attempt a bit of defence.

    Maybe admin will let us link them with anchor text in this particular instance
    'CUK forum personality of 2011' - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  10. #20

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    17,813
    Thanks (Given)
    462
    Thanks (Received)
    952
    Likes (Given)
    4021
    Likes (Received)
    2638

    Default

    I suspect that the agency's defence will be to demand that all threads referencing them be removed.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.