Giant want me to personally indemnify them

[cojak]

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?

[cojak]

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.

[tractor]

...

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......

[cojak]

I was thinking someone from ARC.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

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

[20years]

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.

[Jubber]

have one

[TykeMerc]

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.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

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

[cojak]

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.