You are right to be concerned with any umbrella company that is not prepared to put their money where their mouth is. And the fact that their response to whether you can continue to claim travel expenses is to quote their dispensation is disengenuous at best, out-right misleading at worst since a dispensation has no bearing whatsoever on whether the expenses are legitimate. Personally, I would avoid based on their slipperyness and unwillingness to answer a simple question.
As for their reference to the PCG that is simply underhand. They have entered into a business relationship with the PCG, nothing more, nothing less - you don't get compliance from the IR from having a business relationship with a 3rd party. No to mention that this particular relationship caused a lot of consternation amongst PCG members (including myself) over the fact that they were not consulted about the arrangement at all and the fact that there was a certain amount of nepotism going on (allegedly, blah blah blah).
As for their reference to the PCG that is simply underhand. They have entered into a business relationship with the PCG, nothing more, nothing less - you don't get compliance from the IR from having a business relationship with a 3rd party. No to mention that this particular relationship caused a lot of consternation amongst PCG members (including myself) over the fact that they were not consulted about the arrangement at all and the fact that there was a certain amount of nepotism going on (allegedly, blah blah blah).



Comment