The above is the commonly held behavior pattern of groups. I've been asked by a few people recently what I think about groups coming together on various schemes. The following represents my thoughts and experience and will not necessarily accord with the actions of those groups I know already exist in this space and which (it seems to me) are doing a very decent job.
A disclaimer. In my day job, I do put together groups of investors who now have problems due to mis-selling of the initial product, compounded by HMRC chasing them for liabilities they never thought they had. This is a paid for service for our clients. The following is NOT an advertisement for such services and NOT an inducement to pay my firm a fee. My firm is looking to expand its business and the contractor sector is one (of many) areas we're looking at. I'll be honest and say that our core proposition is more suited to expanding pensions mis-selling and use of IHT "planning products". Currently we have NO groups of contractors we are acting for and NO active plans to create one. We DO have some initial requests for views and opinions which we are progressing and which MAY evolve further.
Groups of people who have undertaken the same or similar scheme are generally a very good idea so long as some goals and objectives can be agreed and adhered to. Those goals should be established at the outset but should not be rigid. As circumstances change, goals need to be reviewed and also change. You should not join a group if you think that it has a set of goals that once achieved allow you to end your contribution to the group.
These goals should preferably be written into an agreement so as to provide clarity. That agreement can include other issues such as costs, selection of advisers, meetings, administration, etc. DO not however expect that such a group, ring fenced by such an agreement, will be a democracy that will never operate outside the rules. It is impossible to capture all possible actions required in a document unless that document changes pretty much weekly. Equally it is impossible to put every change and interim action required to a vote. In practice the more active individuals (elected or otherwise) will drive the group and unless you are prepared to be one such, you have to accept that fact.
Groups formed to bring legal actions or contest (in this case) HMRC will have a range of opinions within its membership. I have found that these divide roughly into three. There is a group that just wants some support (emotional/practical) but which ultimately wants to get things agreed, pay their dues, recover what they can with the minimum of fuss and move on with their lives. There is a group that for reasons as individual as its members, will contest EVERYTHING sometimes to an unreasonable degree. I estimate that most groups have around 10% of their population in each of these camps.
The majority of members will be looking for a balanced position in terms of recovery of lost fees/income and payment of (tax) liabilities. Whilst there will be differences of opinion as to where that balance is, it is usually the case that most will accept a validly reasoned proposition. Some of this group will leak towards the above two for a number of reasons, especially towards the end of the process.
Groups bring mutual support, cost sharing, knowledge sharing, negotiating power and if properly led and organized will get close to achieving most of its goals.
Groups also bring compromise, potential additional disputes, personality clashes and if poorly led or organized, an inability to reach most of its goals.
Accept that most will be led by those who shout loudest. If that is an issue, don't join.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
A disclaimer. In my day job, I do put together groups of investors who now have problems due to mis-selling of the initial product, compounded by HMRC chasing them for liabilities they never thought they had. This is a paid for service for our clients. The following is NOT an advertisement for such services and NOT an inducement to pay my firm a fee. My firm is looking to expand its business and the contractor sector is one (of many) areas we're looking at. I'll be honest and say that our core proposition is more suited to expanding pensions mis-selling and use of IHT "planning products". Currently we have NO groups of contractors we are acting for and NO active plans to create one. We DO have some initial requests for views and opinions which we are progressing and which MAY evolve further.
Groups of people who have undertaken the same or similar scheme are generally a very good idea so long as some goals and objectives can be agreed and adhered to. Those goals should be established at the outset but should not be rigid. As circumstances change, goals need to be reviewed and also change. You should not join a group if you think that it has a set of goals that once achieved allow you to end your contribution to the group.
These goals should preferably be written into an agreement so as to provide clarity. That agreement can include other issues such as costs, selection of advisers, meetings, administration, etc. DO not however expect that such a group, ring fenced by such an agreement, will be a democracy that will never operate outside the rules. It is impossible to capture all possible actions required in a document unless that document changes pretty much weekly. Equally it is impossible to put every change and interim action required to a vote. In practice the more active individuals (elected or otherwise) will drive the group and unless you are prepared to be one such, you have to accept that fact.
Groups formed to bring legal actions or contest (in this case) HMRC will have a range of opinions within its membership. I have found that these divide roughly into three. There is a group that just wants some support (emotional/practical) but which ultimately wants to get things agreed, pay their dues, recover what they can with the minimum of fuss and move on with their lives. There is a group that for reasons as individual as its members, will contest EVERYTHING sometimes to an unreasonable degree. I estimate that most groups have around 10% of their population in each of these camps.
The majority of members will be looking for a balanced position in terms of recovery of lost fees/income and payment of (tax) liabilities. Whilst there will be differences of opinion as to where that balance is, it is usually the case that most will accept a validly reasoned proposition. Some of this group will leak towards the above two for a number of reasons, especially towards the end of the process.
Groups bring mutual support, cost sharing, knowledge sharing, negotiating power and if properly led and organized will get close to achieving most of its goals.
Groups also bring compromise, potential additional disputes, personality clashes and if poorly led or organized, an inability to reach most of its goals.
Accept that most will be led by those who shout loudest. If that is an issue, don't join.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Comment