New new new!

[IsayIsayIsay]

The more people threaten to walk, the better. If everybody did this, the agencies would have to budge. Instead people ignore common sense and go with some truly awful umbrellas.

The one exception to this situation is SC or DV cleared contracts, which do need the agency to vet the umbrella company extensively.

My advice to the OP would be to stick with your current umbrella if you are happy with them and also to be aware that many badly run umbrella companies, such as those under Parasol group (Nixon Williams, ClearSky, SJD), should not be used unless you enjoy pain and suffering.

I'm sticking with my Umbrella, I don't need the pain, or want the pain.

[northernladuk]

I'm sticking with my Umbrella, I don't need the pain, or want the pain.

Unless that umbrella is part of a certain chain that will be/already has been hacked.

[Paralytic]

Unless that umbrella is part of a certain chain that will be/already has been hacked.

If i were with an Umbrella not already impacted, i'd already have contacted them asking them to confirm that they are confident that they will not fall foul of the issues that have happened elsewhere (yes, a funny think to be asking your "employer" but this is reality speaking).

I'd suggest any Umbrella not ensuring that is the case (or have not put mitigating actions in place) would be verging on grossly negligent.

[eek]

Unless that umbrella is part of a certain chain that will be/already has been hacked.

We already know it's Clarity from posts on the front page.

[northernladuk]

We already know it's Clarity from posts on the front page.

Serves me right for not reading.