Reply to: FCSA - Confused

[eek]

Yet that is how they advertise themselves to agencies who don't do any research. Mind you at this minute (being very careful with the choice of word there) there is no better option for agencies to use as a check as to the honesty of the company so a self selected members club with intentionally high barrier to joining is just about the only option that doesn't involve insanely large amounts of paperwork.

Oh and HMRC don't want to regulate this industry for there is a world of pain (and probably multiple acts of parliament).

[eek]

Because they are NOT a regulator. They are NOT government appointed, nor legally armed.

They are a trade body.

M

Yet that is how they advertise themselves to agencies who don't do any research. Mind you at this minute (being very careful with the choice of word there) there is no better option for agencies to use as a check as to the honesty of the company so a self selected members club with intentionally high barrier to joining is just about the only option that doesn't involve insanely large amounts of paperwork.

Oh and HMRC don't want to regulate this industry for there is a world of pain (and probably multiple acts of parliament).

[mjcp]

Interesting.


I don't see any regulatory teeth.

Because they are NOT a regulator. They are NOT government appointed, nor legally armed.

FCSA: "We are the UK's leading membership body for compliant umbrella companies, limited company accountants and CIS payroll providers"


Vs

Gas Safe: "Gas Safe Register is the only official gas registration body of gas businesses and engineers in the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Guernsey. By law all gas businesses must be on the Gas Safe Register."


Gas safe is government "enabled" trade body and there is a legal requirement to be registered if you work on Gas equipment. FCSA is not.


M

[eek]

Now that is intriguing, would you care to share here or perhaps offline? If offline, I will be at my desk until 4.30 pm. You will be able reach me in the pub after 5pm.

Having slept on it overnight I actually think it will work and I think it fixes every annoyance a have with the industry in ways that will help the connected parties.

I'm going to run it past Lucy and a couple of other umbrellas on Monday then I may give you a call.

[Hanbanthankyoumam]

I only pay attention to FCSA as they claim to do things they can't do and the problems they are creating by ignoring the herd of elephants / tax avoidance schemes that are in the room alongside them (although I have multiple reasons to believe that one elephant has managed to find enough orange paint to trick everyone into becoming a member).

And in reality the FCSA only provides 1 thing - a comfort blanket for agencies to allow them to avoid doing what would otherwise be very painful due diligence.

I also don't think that none payment is a likely issue here, the greatest risk for contractors is that the umbrella firm is actually a scheme or that the contractor has money outstanding if the umbrella blows up...

But your post has given me an idea as I think I now know how to solve a few problems with a single stone...

I have to say I'm just as intrigued.....

[courtg9000]

But your post has given me an idea as I think I now know how to solve a few problems with a single stone...

Now that is intriguing, would you care to share here or perhaps offline? If offline, I will be at my desk until 4.30 pm. You will be able reach me in the pub after 5pm.

[eek]

Interesting.
I have never paid much attention at all to this FCSA bunch and I can now see why.
A look at their website dosen't exactly fill me with confidence as to their strength. Add to this that a look throough their list of accredited member reveals 2 companies that I have head are in serious trouble from more than one very sound source. I can't name them due to NDA but they have been names and reputations in the industry in the past.
It seeks to tie up naughties such as the brown envelope client acquisition technique but it dosen't look or feel it like can. I could open a brolly lie through my teeth on the forms I have seen and then large it up when a preffered auditor comes to ponce around the office. All the while brown enveloping my way to new business. Thats my opionion.
I don't see any regulatory teeth.
If an umbrella company tells porkies about accreditation thats another issue.
Another is the agencies only allowing the contractors use these firms. See my point above re serious trouble.
Educating the agencies might work, but agents are not really that bright and I suspect that brown enveloping between the brolly and the agent is still rife in spite of accreditation.
Most contractors in my view needn't give a monkeys unless they are being paid late, incorrectly or not at all. In which case, debt collectors/ sending the lads round is far more likely to bring a result than the FCSA in my opinion.
Agencies are a different issue and no one has really ever managed to regulate them either.

I only pay attention to FCSA as they claim to do things they can't do and the problems they are creating by ignoring the herd of elephants / tax avoidance schemes that are in the room alongside them (although I have multiple reasons to believe that one elephant has managed to find enough orange paint to trick everyone into becoming a member).

And in reality the FCSA only provides 1 thing - a comfort blanket for agencies to allow them to avoid doing what would otherwise be very painful due diligence.

I also don't think that none payment is a likely issue here, the greatest risk for contractors is that the umbrella firm is actually a scheme or that the contractor has money outstanding if the umbrella blows up...

But your post has given me an idea as I think I now know how to solve a few problems with a single stone...

[courtg9000]

Interesting.
I have never paid much attention at all to this FCSA bunch and I can now see why.
A look at their website dosen't exactly fill me with confidence as to their strength. Add to this that a look throough their list of accredited member reveals 2 companies that I have head are in serious trouble from more than one very sound source. I can't name them due to NDA but they have been names and reputations in the industry in the past.
It seeks to tie up naughties such as the brown envelope client acquisition technique but it dosen't look or feel it like can. I could open a brolly lie through my teeth on the forms I have seen and then large it up when a preffered auditor comes to ponce around the office. All the while brown enveloping my way to new business. Thats my opionion.
I don't see any regulatory teeth.
If an umbrella company tells porkies about accreditation thats another issue.
Another is the agencies only allowing the contractors use these firms. See my point above re serious trouble.
Educating the agencies might work, but agents are not really that bright and I suspect that brown enveloping between the brolly and the agent is still rife in spite of accreditation.
Most contractors in my view needn't give a monkeys unless they are being paid late, incorrectly or not at all. In which case, debt collectors/ sending the lads round is far more likely to bring a result than the FCSA in my opinion.
Agencies are a different issue and no one has really ever managed to regulate them either.

[ChurchillKnight]

CKA Group / FCSA

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the reply.

That's all very well adhering to the code of compliance; many non-accredited companies can do the same.

What I would like to know was each "brand" i.e entity subject to their own audit to reach accreditation status?

I understand the multiple brands, but all of these are entirely separate entities with no mention to Churchill Knight & Associates.

From a legal perspective the incorporated company itself would be liable, not CK&A. So I strongly believe they should be held accountable as individual entities and therefore hold their own accreditation.

Hi,

Each brand under the Churchill Knight Group has been individually audited by the FCSA. As a result, each brand holds its own accreditation and own certification.

The brands offer services that are tailored to different demographics within our marketplace. Because they are individually accredited and offer varying services, we have deliberately marketed them as individual entities. However, we have never hidden the fact they’re part of the Churchill Knight Group of companies (just look at our FCSA listing on their website - for example). Operating in this fashion is actually far more common than you may think. For example, Volkswagen owns Porsche and Bentley, whilst also owning SEAT.

I hope this helps clear up any uncertainty you have about our brands. If you would like more information, please send an email to [email protected].

Regards,

Alex
Churchill Knight Group

[Hanbanthankyoumam]

Hi,

Please let me confirm that the brands mentioned all fall under the Churchill Knight Group and are FCSA accredited. Each brand adheres to the FCSA's strict Codes of Compliance. It is very common for organisations to have multiple brands within its group - not just in our industry.

If you require more information, please feel free to get in contact with us. The best email is [email protected].

Regards,

Alex
Churchill Knight Group

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the reply.

That's all very well adhering to the code of compliance; many non-accredited companies can do the same.

What I would like to know was each "brand" i.e entity subject to their own audit to reach accreditation status?

I understand the multiple brands, but all of these are entirely separate entities with no mention to Churchill Knight & Associates.

From a legal perspective the incorporated company itself would be liable, not CK&A. So I strongly believe they should be held accountable as individual entities and therefore hold their own accreditation.

[ChurchillKnight]

Churchill Knight Group / FCSA

Hi,

Please let me confirm that the brands mentioned all fall under the Churchill Knight Group and are FCSA accredited. Each brand adheres to the FCSA's strict Codes of Compliance. It is very common for organisations to have multiple brands within its group - not just in our industry.

If you require more information, please feel free to get in contact with us. The best email is [email protected].

Regards,

Alex
Churchill Knight Group

[eek]

Fair point; if what I believe to has happened, has in fact happened. Then that's very sly and backhanded in my opinion.

I know most contractors don't care about FCSA, a lot of agencies do though & it's the agencies that will decide whether you can work through that umbrella. It sucks but unfortunately seems to be the way the industry is right now.

Hopefully HMRC will put something in place sooner rather than later.

And the issue is that you see it as a bad trick to try and pull off, while I see it as a very sensible thing to do for product and market differentiation purposes.

Separate limited companies, separate websites, all focussing on a different segment with a central backend. It's a shame Lucy didn't see it and adopt that approach...

[Hanbanthankyoumam]

Fair point; if what I believe to has happened, has in fact happened. Then that's very sly and backhanded in my opinion.

I know most contractors don't care about FCSA, a lot of agencies do though & it's the agencies that will decide whether you can work through that umbrella. It sucks but unfortunately seems to be the way the industry is right now.

Hopefully HMRC will put something in place sooner rather than later.

[eek]

They're claiming to be this all powerful regulator; yet are potentially not auditing all accredited members? Whether they're happy with it or not, if they havent followed their own code of conduct & jumped through all their own hoops - then why should anyone take their accreditation seriously? Especially when its now such a kingpin in the industry and has made growth for smaller umbrellas nearly impossible.

You are making allegations there where we actually don't know what is allowed and what isn't - I look at Churchill and think well done for working out how to hit critical mass by using different brands

But FCSA aren't a powerfully regulator - they are a members club that are actually doing more harm than good for the industry. Which is why HMRC are looking at how to regulate umbrellas as the FCSA admitted that they don't do what their promised HMRC that they did regarding helping to regulate the industry so HMRC are finally looking at doing something.

There is 1 advantage of the next constituency MP being the Chancellor.

[mjcp]

They're claiming to be this all powerful regulator

1. They claim to be, yet in reality, they're just a self appointed trade body/marketing organization. NOT a gov't appointed regulator, despite sounding sort of like one: FCA/FCsA... almost like they were trying to be something they're not!

Yet are potentially not auditing all accredited members?

2. Their sandpit, their rules... see above.

then why should anyone take their accreditation seriously?

3. Most of us contractors do not... Agents however...

Especially when its now such a kingpin in the industry and has made growth for smaller umbrellas nearly impossible.

4. See point 1. Marketing and point 3. Agents.



M