breeze

[JamJarST]

Experience tends to come from the accumulative work experience of the employees. Think I saw some marketing gumpf from a company a while back stating some ridiculous 100 years experience in some IT product. Nonsense really.

I think you are missing the point though, its not the number of years experience that is significant its where those years were "earned". If they all come form Sunday Solutions then it is 20 years of bad experience and they shouldn't be using this as a positive.

[porrker]

I think you are missing the point though, its not the number of years experience that is significant its where those years were "earned". If they all come form Sunday Solutions then it is 20 years of bad experience and they shouldn't be using this as a positive.

I would be more concerned that the scheme is completely transparent to HMRC hence why no DOTAS reference. All payments will be reported to HMRC. Once HMRC understand they are being made through commercial loans they will investigate under the disguised employee legislation 'or whatever it is called'. They will argue that the payments into the trust are renumeratilon and hence payments out should be subject to PAYE and NI plus they will add penalties and interest. These cases are very expensive to defend against. Remember discrecinary trusts are used to traditionally reduce inheritance tax. Back in the 60's they where used as tax avoidance vehicles but that loophole got closed......

Most companies have insurance backed by a Lloyds underwriter doesn't mean they payoutc in all circumstances!

The marketing is very slick.... The reason why most providers use off shore vehicles is that they can hide behind basic company reporting in their local jurisdications and are not visible to HMRC.

[mudskipper]

No, CUK should not get involved.

CUK is not a financial advice website, nor is it your Mum.

Due diligence is for those who are considering taking the jump, if they are too idle to do it for themselves then Caveat Emptor.

Those banners are ads, alerting those interested to products and services. Nothing more, nothing less.

I partly agree - but, from CUK's advertising page

Advertising on Contractor UK :: Contractor UK

"Contractor UK is a brand trusted by both contractors and the wider industry. ... We offer our advertisers the unique proposition of targeted selling opportunities across the site, alongside engaging with their prospective contractor clients on the forum."

i.e. the selling point to advertisers is that the CUK brand is trusted. Whilst this is a step away from endorsing the advert, it is a fact that a new contractor who does not know the history of these sort of schemes is more likely to assume that it's a standard way of working because it is advertised on the site alongside accountants/umbrellas etc.

[cojak]

And by searching for Breeze in this forum they will come to this very thread where the pros and cons will be placed before them.

If people can't be arsed to search then so be it...

[SLB]

Paid?

Hi Phil,

Do you and Mark put the income you earn from Breeze/Black Box through this scheme? If not, why not?

Assuming you do (as it is so good, why wouldn't you?) and have done in the past as well where you have worked, how much did you lose in the Sundays affair?

Thanks.

[psychocandy]

Fair does to the two fellas from Breeze coming on here mind.

I guess this could be the one scheme that does work etc. Never know. There may be people who join this and do well out of it.

BUT there have been so many that have gone tits up very badly I wont be touching this.

Bit worrying that the fellas have previously been involved in a dodgy scheme as well. All of a sudden this one is kosher?

For 84% return which is probably not a huge amount more than I get now, I'd rather tulip in my hand and clap as they say.

[ZARDOZ]

And by searching for Breeze in this forum they will come to this very thread where the pros and cons will be placed before them.

If people can't be arsed to search then so be it...

Erm, I remember a indeminity insurance company used to advertise on here. Insurance never existed, Fraud squad were involved. Then there was Darren Upton, OK he didn't asdvertise on here. But, you might expect anything that could be dodgy to be given a wide birth.

[speling bee]

Erm, I remember a indeminity insurance company used to advertise on here. Insurance never existed, Fraud squad were involved. Then there was Darren Upton, OK he didn't asdvertise on here. But, you might expect anything that could be dodgy to be given a wide birth.

I think this is a bit unfair. Do you expect newspapers to vet all of their advertisers?

[geoff from contracta IOM]

Erm, I remember a indeminity insurance company used to advertise on here. Insurance never existed, Fraud squad were involved. Then there was Darren Upton, OK he didn't asdvertise on here. But, you might expect anything that could be dodgy to be given a wide birth.

Who is promoting it exactly ?

[PhilBreeze]

Thanks to everyone for your feedback once again. Your comments regarding “zero risk” are very interesting reading indeed. There is indeed risk in everything – for example in getting out of bed you risk tripping over and knocking yourself out – but is that due to the action of getting out of bed or are there other factors to consider?? Upon reflection the issue of risk is highly subjective and what may seem risky to some, may seem benign to others.. Of course the opposite is also true.

Before I continue I would like to say that our adverts were not designed with the intention of misleading anyone nor making false claims to increase sales. We genuinely stand by our claim of zero risk, moreover in the context of a marketplace where we have many competitors offering “85% products” but few are insured by a third party for a full reimbursement of fees should the improbable happen. After due consideration we made the decision that this was a near unique selling point of our product, thus it would be remiss of us not to highlight it in our marketing materials. I for one am of the opinion that false claims/exaggerated marketing may benefit a business in the short-term, but in the long run you are opening up the business to the risk (pun not intended) of unhappy customers and a bad reputation. This is not our objective.

Our thought process in designing the adverts comes from a certain stance and as I say it’s very interesting to hear feedback from the contractor's stance. To that end we will be altering our marketing materials with immediate effect to modify any statement with regards to mitigation of “risk” and to qualify wherever appropriate the exact terms of the insurances covering our product.