Reply to: Consultant Technologies

[cojak]

Same poster from the other thread.

I'd probably do the same as him if I'd been ripped off...

[NickNick]

This lot are as dodgy as d****, do not go near them!

Seems strange to have two threads on the same company on the same day.
http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...hnologies.html

[sjje1104]

Consultant Technologies

This lot are as dodgy as d****, do not go near them!

[Mr T]

Thanks for the answer marcnicol

Answer appreciated - there's so little out there about this company. Your answer certainly has helped my decision - little point going for a risky outfit when there are so many other well known's out there to choose from. So much for me spamming!

[marcnicol]

I've used them

I used Consultant Technologies for about 6 weeks before ditching them. Here are a few of the reasons why.

1.Lost Contracts - It took almost 5 weeks to get contracts signed because they kept getting "lost"

2.Non Geographical Phone Numbers - The contact numbers I was given were all beginning 020 71... which looks a lot like a SkypeIn number. I got a call recently from one of their admin staff from a number in Cape Town, South Africa.

3. Lies, Lies, Lies - They promised me that documents had been posted or problems "sorted out" when they clearlt had not.

I ended up not trusting them and got very worried about whether I would ever see my money. I even drove to their "offices" in Borehamwood which appear to be over a shop with no sign identifying them as a business.

I can't say I would recommend them.

Marc

[Mr T]

Good Q!

You know, I have only just noticed it myself - I don't actually know! With regards to my first Q however, I can conclude that the outfit is not well known.

[Sockpuppet]

Thanks Cojak - didn't give a link though, just the name.

So what the heck was that blue thing that used to be where (web address removed) was in your first post.

[malvolio]

Either way, I would be very wary of people advertising "maximum return" type solutions. The only way to acheive that is via your own company. Equally, the rules for inside IR35 are so simple there is nothing you can do different without cheating on expenses, which is where the whole atttack on MSCs started.

So use Consultant Technologies if you want, but you will be wasting time and money. Far better to (a) find out if you are inside IR35 (and the majority of us aren't, BTW) and (b) use one of our suggested accountants and get your own company.

Do not expect support from this board for any kind of umbrella; if you are not one of the few IR35-caught pros, or a genuine agency temp, you don't really need them. If you insist you do, then go for the obvious big boys like Parasol or ContractorUmbrella, or PCG's QU scheme.

[Mr T]

Okee dokee

Thanks Cojak - didn't give a link though, just the name. Must say i'm not too impressed on my first attempt on this forum to ask a decent question. Maybe the weekend is not a good time to start.

[cojak]

I would suggest to anyone starting on this forum who wants advice on a company - give the name but not the link.

That way we won't think you're promoting your site though the links.

HTH

[Mr T]

I give up! Ignorance beats me.

I am nothing to do with the outfit - would like to know if anyone knows anything about them. If you have nothing to say except accusing me of xyz, please don't bother to comment - it's a little dull and not in the least entertaining especially as it is a serious question.

[Newby]

That is spam of the highest order, dont they realise that it makes them look far worse than if they said nothing.

Spam Fritters are my favourite!!!

[Mr T]

Honest John!

I am really interested to see if what they claim is true/above board etc. Personally getting back the gumph, I find it hard to believe.

[HankWangford]

hmmmm, and if you dont own/work for them then I'm a fekin permie

[Sockpuppet]

I would be very interested in anyone's views.

My view is that it is semi-cleverly disguised spam and you sir are rumbled.