Ltd Company Details Doc

[Moscow Mule]

Makes perfect sense. It's nothing to do with your work or how your contract is arranged with the end client, it's about you personally.

The agency find themselves in the position where they have to be able to guarantee to HMG that the workers they are placing are allowed to work in the UK - which sort of requires they have proof of who you are - and that you are not breaching the latest flavour of the money laundering regulations (and a few peripheral side effects like checking you aren't obviously operating a VAT carousel fraud).

And it has no impact on IR35 or global warming, before you ask

As I understand it, all of the legislation (Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006) refers to Employment, not placing and is therefore not relevant.

The KYC part of the money laundering regulations don't apply to Employment Agencies, even if they did what they are asking you to supply (copy of passport etc) doesn't cover the rules anyway.

[malvolio]

As I understand it, all of the legislation (Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006) refers to Employment, not placing and is therefore not relevant.

The KYC part of the money laundering regulations don't apply to Employment Agencies, even if they did what they are asking you to supply (copy of passport etc) doesn't cover the rules anyway.

So why then is every agency in the country going through hoops to get compliant with the new regulations. It's not for fun, I would guess. Perhaps it's becuase they, as the primary supplier of the worker, are best placed to run the checks befor the worker arrives, possibly illegally, at the client's premises?

[Moscow Mule]

So why then is every agency in the country going through hoops to get compliant with the new regulations. It's not for fun, I would guess. Perhaps it's becuase they, as the primary supplier of the worker, are best placed to run the checks befor the worker arrives, possibly illegally, at the client's premises?

Are you sure it's every agency?

Perhaps it's because they haven't understood the subtle difference between a temp and a b2b consultancy agreement.

I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that agencies aren't the best at understanding regulations...

[Badger]

Update, sent a letter which included:

"With reference to your request for copies of passport and proof of residence it is not MyCO's policy to give out this information on any MyCo employee due to the Data Protection Act (1998), potential for identity theft and the risk of this data not being stored securely at third parties. MyCo has confirmed the identity of all it's employees and will indemnify the agency if proven incorrect."

No further requests for id

And have now received a contract but they will not send the hard copy until I sign the Offshore parts of the Ltd Company Details form:

>No payments received from this contract are being transferred off shore. Off >Shore includes, but is not limited to, Jersey, Guernsey, and Isle of Man, >Gibraltar, Cyprus, Switzerland
>
>Confirm by signing ________________________
>Confirm by printing name ___________________

Why would they insist on this, what's it got to do with them where I potentially transfer MyCo's money to??

[NotAllThere]

If you were trading in the UK through a company registered in Switzerland, and you neglected to pay the corp tax from the profits generated in the UK, then HMRC might try to get that unpaid tax from the agency.

[Badger]

Thanks NotAllThere, that kind of explains it but they know I've a UK based company

[NotAllThere]

Thanks NotAllThere, that kind of explains it but they know I've a UK based company

Maybe if your UK based company has an offshore bank account then they'd be in the same boat?

I find the whole thing confused as well. Some agencies/clients are quite happy to deal with my Swiss company for UK contracts, others aren't.

[bassy]

hmm I have just had the same request for these details after a contract extension with Sanderson (its about the 4th extension now as I only sign extensions for one month at a time for this). However I dont have copies of the so-called form3 and form4. They already have all the business and liability information and there is no way I am sending utility bills (dont actually receive paper ones - and this is way too personal an item) or a passport (I dont have one), nor will I send 2 references (I dont want another agency to be in competition with me if I try to win further work from a previous client). I have also opted out of agency regs (and long before I met the client as I send a standard letter to all agencies when they say they are putting our cv forward for a role)

Funny thing is that their letter says that without these documents they will not pay invoices, however, there is nothing in the contract to state that these must be sent (only has listed the old vat, liability etc docs). Further I also have security clearance (from other contracts) and this was checked by the client before starting. Any failure to pay my companies' invoices will be met by the standard interest invoice etc whilst as I am only extending a month at a time, withdrawal of company services with information to the client on why.

tbh I dont really want to do the extension as I am just about breaking even on it and am only doing so to help the client out whilst they advertise for a permie. The fact that I am now the only person who knows how the system works and other reasons puts me in quite a good position.

But requests for this sort of information are getting a little too excessive (utility bills !) and I always believed before that Sanderson where 'one of the good guys'. This sort of thing is really beginning to miff me.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

So why then is every agency in the country going through hoops to get compliant with the new regulations. It's not for fun, I would guess. Perhaps it's becuase they, as the primary supplier of the worker, are best placed to run the checks befor the worker arrives, possibly illegally, at the client's premises?

My agency isn't asking for this nonsense, it's only the stupid ones who don't know what they are doing. It is not a legal requirement.

[NickNick]

... I always believed before that Sanderson where 'one of the good guys'.

And that is why you fail. ;o) I will never pass up an opportunity to slate them.