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
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "FSCA chair is complaining about being bullied"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by eek View Post
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.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dave-...844603392-aveG
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jarman View PostI wonder what the "chair" will have to say about this!
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dave-...104634368-bM3f
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.
Leave a comment:
-
I wonder what the "chair" will have to say about this!
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dave-...104634368-bM3f
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jarman View Post
It this 50% "commission" bit true???????
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hanbanthankyoumam View PostLike 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hanbanthankyoumam View PostLike 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Paralytic View Post
Non-compliance with what? If you mean their own rules, which members are not compliant and why not list them here?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View Post
He's running a cash cow enterprise in a non-regulated industry. And you expect honest and fair trading?
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 futureLast edited by eek; 12 April 2021, 08:34.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View Post
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Paralytic View Post
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?
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View Post
Because supposedly they can’t.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Paralytic View Post
Non-compliance with what? If you mean their own rules, which members are not compliant and why not list them here?
Luckily the way back achieve has a June 4th snapshot and that makes interesting reading for the complete lack of changes
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: