• 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!

Giant want me to personally indemnify them

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
    I can't help thinking that there may be some who won't be best chuffed about an umbrella company operating as an agency ARC WELCOMES APSCO UNDERTAKING FOR UMBRELLA MEMBERS
    Any way of putting this thread under certain noses?
    "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


      #52
      Originally posted by 20years View Post
      So, GP wont move on this. So I have had to decline the renewal.

      Will see if thats the end of it, or whether now because I've declined that sparks some movement.

      If its the end of it , I am thoroughly annoyed, and pretty upset at having to turn down 6 months worth of work that I worked hard to obtain without an agencies involvment. It probably also rules out working for this client again until this is sorted out.
      I think that you've done exactly the right thing. I would decline it as well.
      "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


        #53
        ...

        Originally posted by cojak View Post
        Any way of putting this thread under certain noses?
        Given that the OP has confirmed they are a member of IPSE, I am sure this is being taken up as we speak

        I know IPSE freeload here from time to time......

        Comment


          #54
          I was thinking someone from ARC.
          "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


            #55
            Originally posted by cojak View Post
            I was thinking someone from ARC.
            I would imagine that most of the industry professionals will spend time looking on here even if they don't post
            Connect with me on LinkedIn

            Follow us on Twitter.

            ContractorUK Best Forum Advisor 2015

            Comment


              #56
              Hi All,

              Just thought I'd post a final update to this story.

              GP have agreed to drop the requirement for contractors to personally indemnify them. They stated that the reasons for wanting it in the first place were due to the new onshore intermediary legislation, and to protect themselves against unpaid tax/ni claims from HMRC, even though the HMRC guidance states that this doesnt apply where contractors are shareholders of the ltd company and not employed on a self employed basis. The indemnity itself was far more wide ranging than just protection against hmrc claims.

              GP have stated that they intend to introduce this indemnity at some point in the future, but at the moment because no other agencies are trying to do it, they are finding that they're getting too much push back, so for now they are not going to use it.

              Anyway - thanks for all the help and advise - especially the links to the PCG guidance for agencies around the onshore intermediary legislation.

              My take on it is that they hadnt fully understood the onshore intermediary legislation and the scenarios it applies and doesnt apply, and had reacted in a heavy handed way.

              Turned out ok in the end - for now.......

              BTW - 9 other contractors had already signed it, not sure how many were refusing, I know of only 1 other.
              Last edited by 20years; 12 December 2014, 17:19.

              Comment


                #57
                have one

                Comment


                  #58
                  Originally posted by Jubber View Post
                  have one

                  Indeed.

                  Right answer in the long run, but if you'd not stood up to them and accepted (I wonder just how many have) then they would have you firmly over a barrel.

                  I won't be at all surprised to hear others with the same tale you've recounted, as I doubt they've changed their approach.

                  Comment


                    #59
                    Originally posted by 20years View Post
                    Hi All,

                    Just thought I'd post a final update to this story.

                    GP have agreed to drop the requirement for contractors to personally indemnify them. They stated that the reasons for wanting it in the first place were due to the new onshore intermediary legislation, and to protect themselves against unpaid tax/ni claims from HMRC, even though the HMRC guidance states that this doesnt apply where contractors are shareholders of the ltd company and not employed on a self employed basis. The indemnity itself was far more wide ranging than just protection against hmrc claims.

                    GP have stated that they intend to introduce this indemnity at some point in the future, but at the moment because no other agencies are trying to do it, they are finding that they're getting too much push back, so for now they are not going to use it.

                    Anyway - thanks for all the help and advise - especially the links to the PCG guidance for agencies around the onshore intermediary legislation.

                    My take on it is that they hadnt fully understood the onshore intermediary legislation and the scenarios it applies and doesnt apply, and had reacted in a heavy handed way.

                    Turned out ok in the end - for now.......

                    BTW - 9 other contractors had already signed it, not sure how many were refusing, I know of only 1 other.
                    As Giant run an umbrella company and have done for many years I am surprised they would have concerns about unpaid tax and NI and I am pretty sure they have a full understanding of the Onshore Intermediaries legislation
                    Connect with me on LinkedIn

                    Follow us on Twitter.

                    ContractorUK Best Forum Advisor 2015

                    Comment


                      #60
                      Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
                      As Giant run an umbrella company and have done for many years I am surprised they would have concerns about unpaid tax and NI and I am pretty sure they have a full understanding of the Onshore Intermediaries legislation
                      Quite. They have done this for the most obvious reason, to flow the risk downwards past them.
                      "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

                      Working...
                      X