Reply to: Claim Back Monies From Your Umbrella

[eek]

Hmmm I wonder if there is a way to solve this

Trademark is still in examination stage - but should be done this week.

[lucyclarityumbrella]

Hmmm I wonder if there is a way to solve this

[eek]

Makes for an interesting read, and just means that absolute clarity on deductions and rates are needed from the brolly

Actually what it needs is absolute clarity on the day rate to the contractor. All the confusions arise from the advertised rate not being given net of what the client is liable for. And that comes back to the agencies, inflating rates to make the role look more attractive than it really is*.

It was ever thus, sadly...




* Although the canny will note that they never include their own monies in that deception, of course...

Wait and see, wait and see.

I must chase up the IPO and find out the status of the trademark applications.

[malvolio]

Makes for an interesting read, and just means that absolute clarity on deductions and rates are needed from the brolly

Actually what it needs is absolute clarity on the day rate to the contractor. All the confusions arise from the advertised rate not being given net of what the client is liable for. And that comes back to the agencies, inflating rates to make the role look more attractive than it really is*.

It was ever thus, sadly...




* Although the canny will note that they never include their own monies in that deception, of course...

[lucyclarityumbrella]

Makes for an interesting read, and just means that absolute clarity on deductions and rates are needed from the brolly

[eek]

Checking something completely different I found https://assets.publishing.service.go...nd_Reasons.pdf

for which this bit is very relevant

34. The respondent has not helped the situation by the convoluted andconfusing documentation and the Byzantine method of calculating pay anddeductions and by the layout of the payslip. However, I do accept Ms Chan’sanalysis of how the wages were ultimately calculated and I find that therehave been no unlawful deductions. That said: I can sympathise with theclaimant’s confusion on this matter.

and as this is the closest I've seen in all my reading regarding tribunals and umbrella company deductions it's worth mentioning it here.

I suspect if you pay umbrella reclaim a penny you won't see any of it back.

[eek]

Umbrella companies: Lawyers pursue unlawful deductions - Personnel Today

I am feeling a little more confident about my £100 now and I do not remember them saying that it gets refunded if there is no case.....happy days!

Wearing my new business hat, nice article that one - provides a lot of FUD I can use to sell what I'm planning.

[BenDover]

Um given an umbrella survives on stupidly small margins what money will you be getting back when the umbrella closes down. I would love to know how you an umbrella firm could repay £1,107.06 (Employer NI for 20 days at £500 a day) from a £60-100 fee.

Meanwhile you will pay them £102 and never see that back - I wonder if the plan will be to charge more later...

Umbrella companies: Lawyers pursue unlawful deductions - Personnel Today

I am feeling a little more confident about my £100 now and I do not remember them saying that it gets refunded if there is no case.....happy days!

[eek]

Ermm

The clients costs are unaffected by the worker's circumstances and nothing to do with them anyway. The agency doesn't count it's margin in the advertised rate, so why include other overheads?

It's mis-advertising, pure and simple. And therefore illegal...

While advertising "Smurf rates" is illegal it's up to the ASA to police the advertising industry (including recruitment ads) and deal with the complaints and they haven't shown any interest in years even when Unions have complained directly...

[malvolio]

It wouldn't think it would be possible for an agency to advertise a rate after all deductions, there's too many variables per individual to give a broad estimate. They should, however, make it abundantly clear that the rate being advertised is not their salary rate and is inclusive of employers deductions.

Ermm

The clients costs are unaffected by the worker's circumstances and nothing to do with them anyway. The agency doesn't count it's margin in the advertised rate, so why include other overheads?

It's mis-advertising, pure and simple. And therefore illegal...

[Hanbanthankyoumam]

I remember the first time I saw my wage slip and it showed the Employers NI being deducted and I questioned it but it was all too late and they said it has to be that way. It would be better to advertise roles with your take home after all deductions rather than gross.

It wouldn't think it would be possible for an agency to advertise a rate after all deductions, there's too many variables per individual to give a broad estimate. They should, however, make it abundantly clear that the rate being advertised is not their salary rate and is inclusive of employers deductions.

[BenDover]

It all comes down to the way in which the umbrella communicates the deductions, if an umbrella ever claims to take this from the workers pay, then yes they are correct and the umbrella could find themselves in very difficult waters. If the umbrella is clear in communicating that the employment costs are met from the monies received / invoice value before the employees salary is arrived at, then not sure how they would argue it.

I remember the first time I saw my wage slip and it showed the Employers NI being deducted and I questioned it but it was all too late and they said it has to be that way. It would be better to advertise roles with your take home after all deductions rather than gross.

[BenDover]

Come on then, be interested to see who they are and what's the link?

Lucy, I have no idea who the brolly is as I do not need one nor did they provide me with the name of them. I have registered my claim and now wait to see what will happen, no doubt it will take ages as did my PPI stuff but time is on my side...lol

[lucyclarityumbrella]

but they do have a brolly they have partnered up with where NHS/Care workers pay £12.50 (don't quote me as I may have heard wrong) per timesheet and this company is a new company which cannot be claimed against and operates to all the guidelines 'Umbrella Reclaim' have in place.

Come on then, be interested to see who they are and what's the link?

[lucyclarityumbrella]

It seems the original case wasn't contested so the case umbrella reclaim is using as the basis of their claim may be completely irrelevant as it is a default judgement due to no defence being offered. Which means that there is currently no basis to justify the claim that it was affirmed by a judgement - as there was no defence to judge which won't be the case if this plan got anywhere.

It all comes down to the way in which the umbrella communicates the deductions, if an umbrella ever claims to take this from the workers pay, then yes they are correct and the umbrella could find themselves in very difficult waters. If the umbrella is clear in communicating that the employment costs are met from the monies received / invoice value before the employees salary is arrived at, then not sure how they would argue it.