Can an Agency force me to use an FCSA Umbrella

[northernladuk]

Do you mean you wished to cause bellyaching in others, or that you wished to bellyache?

Dunno about bellyache but I bet you've got an aching in your ban finger right now.

[No1 WhistleB]

I have accepted a position with Lorien Resourcing Ltd, however they are forcing me to use their selected Umbrella. Now I do not want to use and FCSA Umbrella due to all the issue I see all over the internet. Is there away I can use a Professional Passport Umbrella instead. The Agency is saying the client only wants FCSA, but I know this is not the fact.

Hello,

No an agency can not force you to use an FCSA umbrella, All FCSA umbrellas simply pay a subscription fee to gain accreditation after a singular internal audit.

Its basically like an "old boys club" where you pay into the pot and your reap the rewards.

By the sounds of it your recruitment consultant at which ever agency you use is on some type of back handed from the agency who will gain "commission" to pass your information there and ultimately get you signed up.

If you hold firm regarding the preference of which umbrella you are wanting to use in my experience the end client will allow this.

I hope all goes well

[eek]

Hello,

No an agency can not force you to use an FCSA umbrella, All FCSA umbrellas simply pay a subscription fee to gain accreditation after a singular internal audit.

Its basically like an "old boys club" where you pay into the pot and your reap the rewards.

By the sounds of it your recruitment consultant at which ever agency you use is on some type of back handed from the agency who will gain "commission" to pass your information there and ultimately get you signed up.

If you hold firm regarding the preference of which umbrella you are wanting to use in my experience the end client will allow this.

I hope all goes well

Sorry but that simply isn't true and an agency has the right to insist that only umbrellas on their PSL can be used

I've been discussing the above with agencies and umbrellas for weeks and HMRC's rules regarding mini umbrellas means doing anything else would be completely insane.

[ladymuck]

Sorry but that simply isn't true and an agency has the right to insist that only umbrellas on their PSL can be used

Agreed. The agency has to do a certain amount of due diligence and it's easier to use some form of industry accreditation as a short cut to that.

Regardless of what you think of the FCSA, what they offer agencies is some form of assurance that the umbrellas on their list are compliant even if some of their working practices are morally reprehensible.

Just like any company operating a PSL, agencies will shortlist the umbrellas they work with as it keeps the admin overheads down. I have no doubt that there's still backhanders going on between agencies and umbrellas for referrals.

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's illegal.

[eek]

Agreed. The agency has to do a certain amount of due diligence and it's easier to use some form of industry accreditation as a short cut to that.

Regardless of what you think of the FCSA, what they offer agencies is some form of assurance that the umbrellas on their list are compliant even if some of their working practices are morally reprehensible.

Just like any company operating a PSL, agencies will shortlist the umbrellas they work with as it keeps the admin overheads down. I have no doubt that there's still backhanders going on between agencies and umbrellas for referrals.

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's illegal.

I will point out the accreditation isn't enough to meet HMRC's viewpoint on due diligence but until I've got a working system (we are close, just still not close enough) accreditation is the only game in town.

[ladymuck]

I will point out the accreditation isn't enough to meet HMRC's viewpoint on due diligence but until I've got a working system (we are close, just still not close enough) accreditation is the only game in town.

Well that's why I said short cut but, you're right, I should have been more explicit.