Do decent agents exist? where???

[DodgyAgent]

Absolute Tosh

As an agent, which umbrella company a contractor uses is very important to me. The key thing is to make sure that the umbrella is fully compliant with all the wishes of my client (insurance etc). Secondly, I need to make sure all monies are paid through the UK (i.e no dodgy offshore accounts). Thirdly, I need to make sure they pay on time and are financially stable (no hassle from contractor). You would be surprised how many umbrellas cannot guarantee these three fairly simple things. And as such I have a list of umbrellas I use and I do not stray from that list as it only leads to problems. This way I am 100% sure of the stability and service of the company and know that I and the contractor won’t have any problems

What are you doing getting involved in picking umbrella companies for contractors, it is none of your business??? Check them out by all means, yes. But......

As Malvolio correctly pointed out it does not matter a jot who you are paying for the contractor as long as it is a bona fide limited company. If that company wants to pay the contractor through an offshore account, with drugs or with a steady supply of call girls (or boys) then that is their business.

There are certain legal elements that come to play such as checking identities etc but these are nothing to do with how they operate. All this is Boll****. It is more to do with control, extra money (kickbacks from umbrella companies are always being offered to me) and coercian from lawyers.

My own agency (12 years old) is on the PSL of 3 major blue chips run by 3rd party "agents" with onerous legal requirements. We have ourselves taken considerable amounts of legal advice, and our conclusion is to let the contractors do more or less what they want (which includes the OPt in opt out-we just ask we never try to push them).

Some of you agents may take a look at the practices of government, and their obsession with "control" and risk. You may then understand why you get so little business from word of mouth.

[Biker Boy]

As an agent, which umbrella company a contractor uses is very important to me. The key thing is to make sure that the umbrella is fully compliant with all the wishes of my client (insurance etc). Secondly, I need to make sure all monies are paid through the UK (i.e no dodgy offshore accounts). Thirdly, I need to make sure they pay on time and are financially stable (no hassle from contractor). You would be surprised how many umbrellas cannot guarantee these three fairly simple things. And as such I have a list of umbrellas I use and I do not stray from that list as it only leads to problems. This way I am 100% sure of the stability and service of the company and know that I and the contractor won’t have any problems

Who is on your list then?

[jonhoops]

[QUOTE=DodgyAgent]What are you doing getting involved in picking umbrella companies for contractors, it is none of your business??? Check them out by all means, yes. But......

As Malvolio correctly pointed out it does not matter a jot who you are paying for the contractor as long as it is a bona fide limited company. If that company wants to pay the contractor through an offshore account, with drugs or with a steady supply of call girls (or boys) then that is their business.
[QUOTE]

I get involved because it my job as an agent to ensure that contractor, client and agency have as little as possible problems while the 3 are involved. Bad/non compliant umbrellas cause problems for agencies and contractors. I work mainly in banking and finance and my clients want to be a reassured as possible that the contractors they are paying for comply with their insurance and tax regulations. The simple fact is that using a contractor/umbrella company who are not compliant with FSA/Tax office/EU/DTI standards puts the client and agency at considerable risk.

Therefore, it would be irresponsible not to get involved. If a contractor is using an agency I know to be late payers/troublesome etc.. then I will tell him and he can make up his mind. If he wants to work with me and my clients, he will have use a reputable umbrella company.

[DodgyAgent]

I get involved because it my job as an agent to ensure that contractor, client and agency have as little as possible problems while the 3 are involved. Bad/non compliant umbrellas cause problems for agencies and contractors. I work mainly in banking and finance and my clients want to be a reassured as possible that the contractors they are paying for comply with their insurance and tax regulations. The simple fact is that using a contractor/umbrella company who are not compliant with FSA/Tax office/EU/DTI standards puts the client and agency at considerable risk.

Therefore, it would be irresponsible not to get involved. If a contractor is using an agency I know to be late payers/troublesome etc.. then I will tell him and he can make up his mind. If he wants to work with me and my clients, he will have use a reputable umbrella company.[/QUOTE]

All companies come under the scrutiny of the FSA, Tax man and the DTI whether they be Tesco, Shell or JP Morgan. What has late payment got to do with this? JP Morgan are late payers but I dont tell contractors not to work there.

My own company (which like my dick is bigger than yours ) also supplies into the city, but because we also deal with other corporates we dont have this superior view of our own importance just because we work with the "pinstripe brigade" (who are nothing more than casino croupiers, who build complex one arm bandits) in the city.

Besides in my experience slagging off another agency just because they appear to be late payers, based on anecdotal evidence (which is not the same as being FSA compliant), is usually counterproductive.

[Denny]

What are you doing getting involved in picking umbrella companies for contractors, it is none of your business??? Check them out by all means, yes. But......

As Malvolio correctly pointed out it does not matter a jot who you are paying for the contractor as long as it is a bona fide limited company. If that company wants to pay the contractor through an offshore account, with drugs or with a steady supply of call girls (or boys) then that is their business.

There are certain legal elements that come to play such as checking identities etc but these are nothing to do with how they operate. All this is Boll****. It is more to do with control, extra money (kickbacks from umbrella companies are always being offered to me) and coercian from lawyers.

My own agency (12 years old) is on the PSL of 3 major blue chips run by 3rd party "agents" with onerous legal requirements. We have ourselves taken considerable amounts of legal advice, and our conclusion is to let the contractors do more or less what they want (which includes the OPt in opt out-we just ask we never try to push them).

Some of you agents may take a look at the practices of government, and their obsession with "control" and risk. You may then understand why you get so little business from word of mouth.

I'm appalled, but not at all surprised, that you say that you are offered kickbacks from umbrellas. This is unethical and wrong in every business sense.

Contractors are the umbrellas clients, not the agencies. They are simply the substitute administrators for what would otherwise be the contractors' own role as limited company director should they have chosen to operate that way. Instead, umbrella users are paying the umbrella a fee to administrate payroll on their behalf. It's like hiring a cleaner instead of hoovering yourself.

If umbrellas are more keen to keep an agent happy than the contractors who use them to begin with, what happens if the contractor gets terminated unfairly and the agency won't pay them? It surely means that the umbrella will be very reluctant to challenge the agency for fear of losing business and therefore not bother following the matter up. As we know, contractors can't sue the agency directly if they've gone through the umbrella, they can only sue the agency directly if they are owner managed businesses and directors in their own right. Technically that shouldn't make a difference if the umbrella is acting as 'mouthpiece' for the contractor as director substitute, but if they are operating as independent substitute 'bosses' with minds and thoughts of their own that don't reflect the contractors own wishes to challenge an agent when necessary then they are not acting as substitute directors they are acting as employer bosses. If that is the case, then they should not be deducting employers NI contributions as well as employees, and they shouldn't be insistent (in some cases, not all) that contractors are opted out. I don't use umbrellas to cross me, I hire them just like I would a solicitor, to take my instructions and only act only in my own best interests within the law as would be expected from the IR.

What umbrellas have you received offers of kickbacks from? I would be very interested to know.

Could you PM me the details, if you don't want to make it public. Thanks.

[Denny]

For a more unbiased opinion put a posting here.

I don't know what to make of your comment above except to say that I find it profoundly offensive.

Everything I write is based on unbiased and longstanding knowledge of recruitment, contracting and writing - including being published in national newspapers (for handsome fees) on those very issues. I don't appreciate you coming on here trying to act as some kind of rival to my thoughts and ideas by trying to rubbish me and positioning yourself very conveniently in line as some sort of spokesperson for all that is true and relevant over the issues discussed on this forum.

[DodgyAgent]

What umbrellas have you received offers of kickbacks from? I would be very interested to know.

Could you PM me the details, if you don't want to make it public. Thanks.

To be honest I cannot remember nor do I care, there are worse things going on in the world than umbrella companies giving kickbacks and we dont place enough contractors who have not already got themselves sorted out.

[privateeye]

Denny

I don't know what to make of your comment above except to say that I find it profoundly offensive.

Everything I write is based on unbiased and longstanding knowledge of recruitment, contracting and writing - including being published in national newspapers (for handsome fees) on those very issues. I don't appreciate you coming on here trying to act as some kind of rival to my thoughts and ideas by trying to rubbish me and positioning yourself very conveniently in line as some sort of spokesperson for all that is true and relevant over the issues discussed on this forum.

If you read my post properly all I was saying was that you should not just listen to what a particular agent says regarding umbrella companies but by coming somwhere such as here and asking people in the know such as yourself you will get a more unbiased opinion than you will get with just one agent. You will also have read that I supported your opinions and not rubbished them in anyway.

[expat]

Is there a site out there that lists 'the good guys' (and separately lists the bad ones) so that I can find an honest agent? (Stop laughing, there must be one out there?)

-- these sites have existed but they tended to get shut down by the crap agencies' lawyers.

Jonhoops
"as such I have a list of umbrellas I use and I do not stray from that list as it only leads to problems."

-- I suppose that by "I use" and "I do not stray from" you mean "I insist that contractors use"?

[expat]

[QUOTE=DodgyAgent]What are you doing getting involved in picking umbrella companies for contractors, it is none of your business??? Check them out by all means, yes. But......
[QUOTE]Bravo, Dodgy!