Reply to: IR35 Scaremongering?

[mudskipper]

I'm not convinced that gives me much more info (maybe I didn't find the right conversation). All I'll say is it's unwise to quote people you clearly don't agree with, especially if such a quote could be construed as self-serving in one way or another.

You're doing better than me - I can't find any conversation. Which section should I look in?


Edit: Ah, found it.
PCG Lobbying Activity and External Affairs

[meanttobeworking]

I'm not convinced that gives me much more info (maybe I didn't find the right conversation). All I'll say is it's unwise to quote people you clearly don't agree with, especially if such a quote could be construed as self-serving in one way or another.

[malvolio]

I don't think you can explain away an inaccurate statistic quoted by a trusted organisation that is likely to be interpreted as fact by the audience as "hyperbole". Nobody is likely to interpret the statement that over 2000 enquiries have been open as "intentional exaggeration not intended to be taken literally".

It's like me telling my car insurance company I only drive 5,000 miles a year when actually I drive 100,000, and then when I'm caught out, telling them "don't worry, I was just using hyperbole".

Nobody here is arguing the other merits and advantages of PCG, but the fact remains that they have seemingly decieved a trusting audience and then tried to excuse it by blaming someone else. You may say they don't need to do it to drive membership, but they did it for *some* reason, and I don't think it was for the benefit of their current members (or contractors in general).

Go look up the discussion on the PCG fora...

[meanttobeworking]

I don't think you can explain away an inaccurate statistic quoted by a trusted organisation that is likely to be interpreted as fact by the audience as "hyperbole". Nobody is likely to interpret the statement that over 2000 enquiries have been open as "intentional exaggeration not intended to be taken literally".

It's like me telling my car insurance company I only drive 5,000 miles a year when actually I drive 100,000, and then when I'm caught out, telling them "don't worry, I was just using hyperbole".

Nobody here is arguing the other merits and advantages of PCG, but the fact remains that they have seemingly decieved a trusting audience and then tried to excuse it by blaming someone else. You may say they don't need to do it to drive membership, but they did it for *some* reason, and I don't think it was for the benefit of their current members (or contractors in general).

[malvolio]

I've added a poll

PCG did that one among the membership a couple of times. Retention rate was well over 85%. Most members appreciate that it's not all about IR35, and that even if IR35 goes away (and it won't), there will be something else to worry about.

As for the original story, inquiries are up significantly - not thousands, obviously, but enough for people to start looking over their shoulders. This is partly becuase they were scaled right down for a couple of years as much as anything, and we're getting back to status quo. Except they are turning them round much faster (6 weeks rather than 6 years?), so obviously can handle many more cases. There's nothing "scaremongering" about it, just unwarranted hyperbole.

And yes, Abbey aren't a NFP, but PCG are and it's PCG that are being accused of trying to drum up additional business. With growth rates like theirs and well over 80% retention rates, why would they need to?

[mudskipper]

I've added a poll

[mudskipper]

They have now. However, which bit of "not-for-profit organisation" are you having trouble with?

I don't think 'not-for-profit' is relevant. The PCG's existence depends on them attracting members. Although they offer more than just IR35 protection, it is the IR35 protection that makes contractors consider joining. Indeed, you yourself when people pose IR35 questions respond with, take the contract, join the PCG and stop worrying.

[ZARDOZ]

The PCG considered Darren Upton trustworthy, he was recommended on their website. Perhaps he came up with the figure on the number of investigations.

[meanttobeworking]

Perhaps the PCG ought to dig a little deeper and find out who all these other commentators are that also back the claim, rather than just blaming their friends at Abbey Tax (who PCG considered a trustworthy source in the first place).

[northernladuk]

They have now. However, which bit of "not-for-profit organisation" are you having trouble with?

Abbey Tax are NFP?

[ZARDOZ]

Here is the follow-up:
PCG removes claim of '2,000 IR35 enquiries since May' :: Contractor UK

Oh Dear, it was scaremongering then?

[meanttobeworking]

Whether the motivation in monetary or otherwise, I think most people will just be wondering what the full story is, and struggling to find an explanation that shows them to be working for the contractor's best interests. Although I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise if you've got suggestions...

[malvolio]

Bearing in mind PCG make money selling protection (insurance or whatever) it seems a pretty serious accusation this. It isn't just scaremongering, it is making people part with cash on false information.

Am sure they will respond with clarrification soon though.

They have now. However, which bit of "not-for-profit organisation" are you having trouble with?

[meanttobeworking]

I genuinely can't believe they think that response is acceptable and everyone is just going to say "oh right, ok, that makes sense". It's no different to when #1 son gets told off for something and says "#1 daughter told me to do it"...

[northernladuk]

Very disappointing that is was done in the first place, with the "explanation" seemingly a poor attempt to shift the blame. As a PCG member, they have gone down in my estimation considerably.

shift the blame to someone that sells insurance to cover this as well.......