Reply to: Atlantic Umbrella - Any Thoughts / Experience of Them?

[PinkPoshRat]

I have never had any problems with them, and I am one of the unluckiest people alive

[Daniel]

Atlantic Umbrella

With reference to the query at Atlantic Umbrella and are they any good?

Well in a nutshell, No is the answer. I have been using them for many years and have been let down many times by them.

It seems if you have a simple query like can I change my address then these will be dealt with quickly but if you have a money question then you will be ignored.

And really, unless you want to be an absolutely laughing stock of the Atlantic Umbrella offices, do not ask them to explain how they equate your monies. This is a black box mechanism. You do are not allowed to ask about the variables, you get what they give you.

Sorry for the sourness but do not be fooled by the glossy web site.

Now off to bang my head against a wall some more.

[malvolio]

It does. It is at the heart of the MOO discussion. Ho hum...

[tim123]

Yes, I know all this, thank you.

But my point was, and still is, that not getting paid for a day taken off adds nothing to the arguement. It matter's not that the client instructs you before-hand that you may not work on a particular day.

tim

[malvolio]

The primary IR35 tests are the three detailed earlier, MOO, RoS and D&C. Getting paid is not about turning up, it's about doing contracted-for work and if an employee fails to appear one day, he's not doing it and is penalised as a rsult. But hat is not Mutuality of Obligation.

The MOO test is if they have to pay you just for being at work, which they do for employees but not (normallly) for contractors, or if they have to pay you when there is no work for you to do wherever you're sat at the time - which, incidentally, is why you don't want a notice period in your contract.

[tim123]

Huh? A perm not turning up is a perm not fulfilling his contract to do the work he has been allocated, that's why he doesn't get paid (or he takes it as leave/sick), usually as a penalty for dereliction. They rarely get forced to take Christmas unpaid, it's merely deducted from their annual leave. That is not the same as me not charging for a day I'm not working for the client and the client has no obligation to pay me if I don't work, or if there is no work for me to do. Big difference.

Holidays are paid, always, if you're a perm, because your employer has to allow you a certain amount of time off; the cost merely gets rolled up in your annual salary. He is under no such obligation with me, I can work whatever days I need to do the job

Don't try and use employee arguments to describe contractor behaviour. You will only end up getting confused, as you have so ably demonstrated.

I don't agree. I understand the difference completely.

Not getting paid, for not turning up proves absolutely nothing wrt IR35. Some perms can do this. It is not a strong indicator.

And holidays are completely irrelevent. The IR35 test makes them so. Argueing that having employee benefits makes you an employee and not having them make you not one is a circular arguement. The IR35 tests ignores this and looks at other indicators to decide.

tim

[malvolio]

Huh? A perm not turning up is a perm not fulfilling his contract to do the work he has been allocated, that's why he doesn't get paid (or he takes it as leave/sick), usually as a penalty for dereliction. They rarely get forced to take Christmas unpaid, it's merely deducted from their annual leave. That is not the same as me not charging for a day I'm not working for the client and the client has no obligation to pay me if I don't work, or if there is no work for me to do. Big difference.

Holidays are paid, always, if you're a perm, because your employer has to allow you a certain amount of time off; the cost merely gets rolled up in your annual salary. He is under no such obligation with me, I can work whatever days I need to do the job

Don't try and use employee arguments to describe contractor behaviour. You will only end up getting confused, as you have so ably demonstrated.

[tim123]

Really? Do you understand RoS and D&C as clearly?
.

Yes

I was talking about not being inside IR35, since the OP appears to be unaware of the three key tests.

I understand this.

A perm often doesn't get paid if he just decides not to turn up.

Some perms don't get paid for Xmas.

Perms get paid holidays. But having a contract not giving the worker holidays doesn't make one outside of IR35.

tim

[malvolio]

Rule 1: Mal is always right.


Rule 2: When Mal is wrong, Rule #1 shall apply.



That appeared on a Lotus BB I used at one site a few years back. Another entry was "Why bother making it idiotproof? They'll just invent a better class of idiot."

[cojak]

Mal is right, you know...

[malvolio]

Sorry Mavolio, only the middle one is an example of MOO, the other two are irrelevent.

tim

Really? Do you understand RoS and D&C as clearly?

I was talking about not being inside IR35, since the OP appears to be unaware of the three key tests.

[KennyG]

You haven't been keeping up. There are three tests, basically:

1. Have you the right to send a substitute to do your work, perhaps with a degree of client approval (but not outright veto)?

2. Do you have any say in how you do the work or is every action, line of code, naming convention, start time, end time, lunch time, colour of socks or general approach dictated by the client?

3. If you don't turn up, do you get paid. If you do turn up and there's no work for you, do you get paid? If they close for Christmas, do you get paid?

Pass any one of those and the chances are you're outside IR35. So stop faffing around and get an expert opinion. And if you're determined to be inside IR35, what about holiday pay, SSP, maternity leave, pension, employment protection, training..... Understand?

Sorry Mum

[tim123]

3. If you don't turn up, do you get paid. If you do turn up and there's no work for you, do you get paid? If they close for Christmas, do you get paid?

Sorry Mavolio, only the middle one is an example of MOO, the other two are irrelevent.

tim

[malvolio]

From what I've read, it's all very well to have a contract say certain things but it only stands up against IR35 if it reflects what is happening in reality.

You haven't been keeping up. There are three tests, basically:

1. Have you the right to send a substitute to do your work, perhaps with a degree of client approval (but not outright veto)?

2. Do you have any say in how you do the work or is every action, line of code, naming convention, start time, end time, lunch time, colour of socks or general approach dictated by the client?

3. If you don't turn up, do you get paid. If you do turn up and there's no work for you, do you get paid? If they close for Christmas, do you get paid?

Pass any one of those and the chances are you're outside IR35. So stop faffing around and get an expert opinion. And if you're determined to be inside IR35, what about holiday pay, SSP, maternity leave, pension, employment protection, training..... Understand?

[DaveB]

From what I've read, it's all very well to have a contract say certain things but it only stands up against IR35 if it reflects what is happening in reality.

That's true, but still none on of the things you listed are necesserily pointers to IR35.

If you are paid a day rate it is entirely reasonable for the client to want records of the number of days you worked in a given period to reconcile against invoices. It doesn't mean you are an employee.

One long term client just means you have a good business relationship with them. You are not claiming any rights based on the length of that relationship and many employees move on without working for an employer for that long.

Client supplying equipment is quote normal for those that want to keep control of their networks and data, especially when working with sensitive information. It's simply good business practice on their part not to let uncontrolled devices access their data.

Since you are listed in the phone books specifically as a contractor that actually points to you not being treated as an employee. Similar arguments apply to ID cards that differ between employees and contractors. The client is making the distinction and ensuring you are not classed an an employee.