Reply to: FSCA chair is complaining about being bullied

[eek]

There is a very good attack line you can use within the FCSAS reply (one that the FCSA CEO has repeated elsewhere)

Dave however hasn't even noticed it but as he's blocked me for pointing out his stupidity in the past I will save the flaw for own marketing

[Jarman]

Dave Chaplin will be ignored - he actually isn't saying anything new there and the FCSA just regard him as background noise.

The problem is that Dave needs to understand you can't deal with the FCSA by arguing with them - you remove their foundations bit by bit by offering something better that more closely meets agencies needs - and HMRC are being very clear here - check that every penny you pay is going to the correct place or Customs and Excise will be coming after the VAT side of the transaction.

Part 2 is probably just confirming your above ... but I don't think Dave will stop by the looks of it. #GoDave

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dave-...844603392-aveG

[eek]

I wonder what the "chair" will have to say about this!

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dave-...104634368-bM3f

Dave Chaplin will be ignored - he actually isn't saying anything new there and the FCSA just regard him as background noise.

The problem is that Dave needs to understand you can't deal with the FCSA by arguing with them - you remove their foundations bit by bit by offering something better that more closely meets agencies needs - and HMRC are being very clear here - check that every penny you pay is going to the correct place or Customs and Excise will be coming after the VAT side of the transaction.

[Jarman]

I wonder what the "chair" will have to say about this!

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dave-...104634368-bM3f

[eek]

It this 50% "commission" bit true???????

It wasn't an umbrella scheme but an offer from a FCSA registered firm who operate a separate Joint Employment scheme (which the FCSA don't regulate because there be awkward demons there).

The offer was that any money from unused holiday would be split 50/50 with the agency with the implication that the joint employment firm would not be making any effort to highlight that holiday's hadn't been taken.


As for the name of the umbrella firm involved I suspect if you looked at this data from Offpayroll https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...9sw/edit#gid=0 it will give you a clue

[Jarman]

Like you said Lucy, immoral, yes. Illegal, unfortunately not.
Although surely there's a legal challenge that could be put to the FCSA regarding the umbrellas conduct and offering agencies 50% of unused holiday?
It would also be interesting to know the action taken by the FCSA to said umbrella companies... I think it's safe to say there would be none taken. The rather familiar stance of who you know and not what you know in regards to the FCSA. The sooner they're gone, the better.

It this 50% "commission" bit true???????

[eek]

Like you said Lucy, immoral, yes. Illegal, unfortunately not.
Although surely there's a legal challenge that could be put to the FCSA regarding the umbrellas conduct and offering agencies 50% of unused holiday?
It would also be interesting to know the action taken by the FCSA to said umbrella companies... I think it's safe to say there would be none taken. The rather familiar stance of who you know and not what you know in regards to the FCSA. The sooner they're gone, the better.

Technically the FCSA does not monitor joint employment schemes although professional passport does.

[Hanbanthankyoumam]

Like you said Lucy, immoral, yes. Illegal, unfortunately not.
Although surely there's a legal challenge that could be put to the FCSA regarding the umbrellas conduct and offering agencies 50% of unused holiday?
It would also be interesting to know the action taken by the FCSA to said umbrella companies... I think it's safe to say there would be none taken. The rather familiar stance of who you know and not what you know in regards to the FCSA. The sooner they're gone, the better.

[lucyclarityumbrella]

The problem is that at the moment what they have done with regards to holiday pay is not unlawful (unless someone manages to challenge it in the court and win to set a precedent), it is instead immoral. On normal employment contracts this can be standard - unfortunately as we all know this is not really "standard" employment so in my eyes should be treated differently.
The other issue is that as an umbrella company we are in law required to accrue holiday pay, which makes this issue more prominent as the umbrella is holding that money. If the holiday pay was rolled up then this wouldn't have been an issue! Time for legislation rethink for definite!

[northernladuk]

Non-compliance with what? If you mean their own rules, which members are not compliant and why not list them here?

Well that and didn't some of their members mess up holiday pay or something which is legislated? Then there is furlough and I'm sure others.

It's not for me to list them, it's for them to sort themselves out so there isn't whispers and hearsay that all their members aren't quite as good as they say.

[eek]

He's running a cash cow enterprise in a non-regulated industry. And you expect honest and fair trading?

Nope - I’m just enjoying the fact they are writing my marketing and sales pitches for me

You have to remember I’ve spent 6 months now working out how to introduce transparency into this world when most umbrella firms love the fact they are opaque and their customers (who aren’t contractors but are the umbrellas themselves and then the agencies who tell contractors which firms you can use) love the fact they are usually paid for every referral.

open banking and the fact I have a very good relationship with my MP means that things may need to be more open in future

[malvolio]

The only way you would completely know if an umbrella firm is non complaint would be to fully understand the FSCA rules and have the misfortune to only be allowed to work through an non compliant umbrella and then actual be caught out by the dodgy dealings.

that is going to be very hard to do but I will highlight one thing I am questioning

Mr Puck claims to have expelled multiple members since his arrival in June / July 2020.

yet when I look at the wayback archive for June 4th 2020 only 2 companies are listed there that are not listed today - one of those (liberty bishop) is now part of another member (jsa) so it’s hard to confirm the single statement in his response

He's running a cash cow enterprise in a non-regulated industry. And you expect honest and fair trading?

[eek]

I wasn't meaning FCSA, I was meaning NLUK. If some FCSA members are non-compliant (although it's not clear to what compliance he is measuring them against), then why not list them here so others can see those and avoid?

The only way you would completely know if an umbrella firm is non complaint would be to fully understand the FSCA rules and have the misfortune to only be allowed to work through an non compliant umbrella and then actual be caught out by the dodgy dealings.

that is going to be very hard to do but I will highlight one thing I am questioning

Mr Puck claims to have expelled multiple members since his arrival in June / July 2020.

yet when I look at the wayback archive for June 4th 2020 only 2 companies are listed there that are not listed today - one of those (liberty bishop) is now part of another member (jsa) so it’s hard to confirm the single statement in his response

[Paralytic]

Because supposedly they can’t.

I wasn't meaning FCSA, I was meaning NLUK. If some FCSA members are non-compliant (although it's not clear to what compliance he is measuring them against), then why not list them here so others can see those and avoid?

[eek]

Non-compliance with what? If you mean their own rules, which members are not compliant and why not list them here?

Because supposedly they can’t.

Luckily the way back achieve has a June 4th snapshot and that makes interesting reading for the complete lack of changes