Reply to: Giant want me to personally indemnify them

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

No one cares about the Conduct Regs. Not even Cable or the BIS.

Sounds about right

[tractor]

...

Indeed. I wonder, if the umbrella side is involved with the agency side, how it all squares with the conduct regs?

No one cares about the Conduct Regs. Not even Cable or the BIS.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Quite. They have done this for the most obvious reason, to flow the risk downwards past them.

Indeed. I wonder, if the umbrella side is involved with the agency side, how it all squares with the conduct regs?

[cojak]

As Giant run an umbrella company and have done for many years I am surprised they would have concerns about unpaid tax and NI and I am pretty sure they have a full understanding of the Onshore Intermediaries legislation

Quite. They have done this for the most obvious reason, to flow the risk downwards past them.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Hi All,

Just thought I'd post a final update to this story.

GP have agreed to drop the requirement for contractors to personally indemnify them. They stated that the reasons for wanting it in the first place were due to the new onshore intermediary legislation, and to protect themselves against unpaid tax/ni claims from HMRC, even though the HMRC guidance states that this doesnt apply where contractors are shareholders of the ltd company and not employed on a self employed basis. The indemnity itself was far more wide ranging than just protection against hmrc claims.

GP have stated that they intend to introduce this indemnity at some point in the future, but at the moment because no other agencies are trying to do it, they are finding that they're getting too much push back, so for now they are not going to use it.

Anyway - thanks for all the help and advise - especially the links to the PCG guidance for agencies around the onshore intermediary legislation.

My take on it is that they hadnt fully understood the onshore intermediary legislation and the scenarios it applies and doesnt apply, and had reacted in a heavy handed way.

Turned out ok in the end - for now.......

BTW - 9 other contractors had already signed it, not sure how many were refusing, I know of only 1 other.

As Giant run an umbrella company and have done for many years I am surprised they would have concerns about unpaid tax and NI and I am pretty sure they have a full understanding of the Onshore Intermediaries legislation

[TykeMerc]

have one

Indeed.

Right answer in the long run, but if you'd not stood up to them and accepted (I wonder just how many have) then they would have you firmly over a barrel.

I won't be at all surprised to hear others with the same tale you've recounted, as I doubt they've changed their approach.

[Jubber]

have one

[20years]

Hi All,

Just thought I'd post a final update to this story.

GP have agreed to drop the requirement for contractors to personally indemnify them. They stated that the reasons for wanting it in the first place were due to the new onshore intermediary legislation, and to protect themselves against unpaid tax/ni claims from HMRC, even though the HMRC guidance states that this doesnt apply where contractors are shareholders of the ltd company and not employed on a self employed basis. The indemnity itself was far more wide ranging than just protection against hmrc claims.

GP have stated that they intend to introduce this indemnity at some point in the future, but at the moment because no other agencies are trying to do it, they are finding that they're getting too much push back, so for now they are not going to use it.

Anyway - thanks for all the help and advise - especially the links to the PCG guidance for agencies around the onshore intermediary legislation.

My take on it is that they hadnt fully understood the onshore intermediary legislation and the scenarios it applies and doesnt apply, and had reacted in a heavy handed way.

Turned out ok in the end - for now.......

BTW - 9 other contractors had already signed it, not sure how many were refusing, I know of only 1 other.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I was thinking someone from ARC.

I would imagine that most of the industry professionals will spend time looking on here even if they don't post

[cojak]

I was thinking someone from ARC.

[tractor]

...

Any way of putting this thread under certain noses?

Given that the OP has confirmed they are a member of IPSE, I am sure this is being taken up as we speak

I know IPSE freeload here from time to time......

[cojak]

So, GP wont move on this. So I have had to decline the renewal.

Will see if thats the end of it, or whether now because I've declined that sparks some movement.

If its the end of it , I am thoroughly annoyed, and pretty upset at having to turn down 6 months worth of work that I worked hard to obtain without an agencies involvment. It probably also rules out working for this client again until this is sorted out.

I think that you've done exactly the right thing. I would decline it as well.

[cojak]

I can't help thinking that there may be some who won't be best chuffed about an umbrella company operating as an agency ARC WELCOMES APSCO UNDERTAKING FOR UMBRELLA MEMBERS

Any way of putting this thread under certain noses?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I can't help thinking that there may be some who won't be best chuffed about an umbrella company operating as an agency ARC WELCOMES APSCO UNDERTAKING FOR UMBRELLA MEMBERS

[vwdan]

So, GP wont move on this. So I have had to decline the renewal.

Will see if thats the end of it, or whether now because I've declined that sparks some movement.

If its the end of it , I am thoroughly annoyed, and pretty upset at having to turn down 6 months worth of work that I worked hard to obtain without an agencies involvment. It probably also rules out working for this client again until this is sorted out.

So to hear you're being dicked. I had a quasi-row with an agency last week who wanted to throw me some ad-hoc work (nothing major, nothing solid) and wanted me to sign a 24 month no compete with ANY of their customers. The result was them not responding to e-mails or calls.

Anyway, he phoned me up today looking to fill a perm position