Reply to: umbrella Paranoia

[BLife]

Serious question: who might it cost a lot of money?

Yes, their almost closed-door policy for new applicants is verging on an anti-competitive use of their market position, leveraging the laziness of agencies, but the competition for customers within the members is there and is therefore keeping costs at a fairly stable level, relative to those outside of FCSA.

If all FCSA members started gradually increasing their prices, then I could then see a claim of some sort of price fixing going on.

I'm seeing some reference to some Umbrellas charging apprenticeship levy when they should not be - if that is the case, those Umbrellas should be named so that individuals can ensure it doesn't happen to them. But, there is also an onus on individual contractors to ensure they are aware of what they are being charged.

The problem is HMRC will not disclose the information because of data protection. So a contractor can not ask HMRC to confirm receipt of the levy deducted from their wage. Its unfair hence my anger and paranoia.

[BLife]

And the Professional Passport ones don't even pretend to hide their none compliance on their own websites anymore (Chester if you are reading this, that's why I'm refusing to even talk to you - and no I won't name names as that's doing your job for you).

Agencies use FCSA and professional passport as they are lazy, and FCSA claim that membership solves all problems agencies have.

And it did until Section 61O of the 2020 Finance Act arrived where the tax liability does belong to the agency / end client and separately someone worked out how to offer real time non-anonymous compliance checks rather than year old carefully select anonymous ones.

BTW that person is me and all should be revealed sometime in December ready for a January Launch and full go live in late February.

Oooh I look forward to hearing all about that.......

[northernladuk]

If only someone would do something about that....

They could try but FCSA will just quosh it by banning or penalising members that are associated with it so it can't take off.

[Paralytic]

Only when someone comes along with a better solution will the FCSA become irrelevant for agencies.

If only someone would do something about that....

[Paralytic]

Certainly a chat bot could replace some posters. A simple one would suffice. You'd just have to program it to say "Have you asked your accountant?".

I thought there was already one that did that, though it does seem to have a bug where it sometimes starts talking about other things it clearly has no clue about.

[eek]

Certainly a chat bot could replace some posters. A simple one would suffice. You'd just have to program it to say "Have you asked your accountant?".

Mudskipper already has a bot that does that - other phrases (and even posters) were available as well.

[NotAllThere]

What kind of question is that?

Certainly a chat bot could replace some posters. A simple one would suffice. You'd just have to program it to say "Have you asked your accountant?".

[eek]

But it won't. Whinging contractor vs large trade body (but it isn't). That's just not going to work. The fact FCSA is rotten from within won't be a factor for the agents decisions.

FCSA allows agencies to use a quick tick box which removes a problem for them.

Only when someone comes along with a better solution will the FCSA become irrelevant for agencies.

[northernladuk]

If either of these can be shown to be true, then it can be used by contractors to push back against agencies who enforce the use of FCSA accredited Umbrellas from their PSL.

But it won't. Whinging contractor vs large trade body (but it isn't). That's just not going to work. The fact FCSA is rotten from within won't be a factor for the agents decisions.

[eek]

I'm not trying to defend them - I think their policy of making it difficult for new entrants is despicable. But, I've seen 2 claims on this thread, neither of which have any documented evidence.

- They have accredited "dodgy" Umbrellas
- Using an FCSA Umbrella could lead to people losing lots of money (this is no more true than someone using a non-accredited one)

If either of these can be shown to be true, then it can be used by contractors to push back against agencies who enforce the use of FCSA accredited Umbrellas from their PSL.

Not true - I have evidence for point 1 I'm just not going to publish it on a public forum - Malvolio has seen the technique and you should note he doesn't disagree with me (and we usually disagree and argue over everything).

And if point 1 is true then by definition your second point is equally true. But the bracketed point there actually isn't valid - the FCSA advertise themselves as the safe option and while they probably are for agencies that may not be true for the contractor. If an agency recommended a non-credited umbrella that was dodgy the missing tax could flow back to the agency for payment, but FCSA affiliation would be enough (at the moment) to mitigate that.

But equally I'm not concerned about pushing back at the enforced use of FCSA umbrellas at the moment - beyond a couple of exceptions it's very hard to know who is actually honest - and you have to give agencies some leeway - until a better method of checking compliance comes along you stick to what you know.

[Paralytic]

You do love to attempt defend them by asking us questions which we then explain but you offer zero postive defense at all.

I'm not trying to defend them - I think their policy of making it difficult for new entrants is despicable. But, I've seen 2 claims on this thread, neither of which have any documented evidence.

- They have accredited "dodgy" Umbrellas
- Using an FCSA Umbrella could lead to people losing lots of money (this is no more true than someone using a non-accredited one)

If either of these can be shown to be true, then it can be used by contractors to push back against agencies who enforce the use of FCSA accredited Umbrellas from their PSL.

[northernladuk]

Ok, but once again: How might the FCSA cost some people a lot of money?

Is there any evidence that FCSA members are not deducting the correct tax (notwithstanding the suggestion that some could be wrongfully charing apprentice levy - if so, they should be named)?

And, if the correct tax has not been paid, then I'd expect the contractor to pay it (I'm assuming there's no suggesting that the Umbrella has been taking more than their margin). It's their tax liability after all.

You do love to attempt defend them by asking us questions which we then explain but you offer zero postive defense at all.

[malvolio]

Ok, but once again: How might the FCSA cost some people a lot of money?

Is there any evidence that FCSA members are not deducting the correct tax (notwithstanding the suggestion that some could be wrongfully charing apprentice levy - if so, they should be named)?

And, if the correct tax has not been paid, then I'd expect the contractor to pay it (I'm assuming there's no suggesting that the Umbrella has been taking more than their margin). It's their tax liability after all.

If a newly created and tiny umbrella with no history can be accredited then you have to ask how rigorous their audit process really is. And that in turns leads to the conclusion that the FSCA offers no protection against the more imaginative umbrellas. And therein lies the risk...

[Paralytic]

Come April next year the agencies are liable for any tax not paid.

Even now if you discover that your umbrella isn't deducting the tax correctly it's the contractor who has to make up the difference.

Ok, but once again: How might the FCSA cost some people a lot of money?

Is there any evidence that FCSA members are not deducting the correct tax (notwithstanding the suggestion that some could be wrongfully charing apprentice levy - if so, they should be named)?

And, if the correct tax has not been paid, then I'd expect the contractor to pay it (I'm assuming there's no suggesting that the Umbrella has been taking more than their margin). It's their tax liability after all.

[eek]

Serious question: who might it cost a lot of money?

Yes, their almost closed-door policy for new applicants is verging on an anti-competitive use of their market position, leveraging the laziness of agencies, but the competition for customers within the members is there and is therefore keeping costs at a fairly stable level, relative to those outside of FCSA.

If all FCSA members started gradually increasing their prices, then I could then see a claim of some sort of price fixing going on.

I'm seeing some reference to some Umbrellas charging apprenticeship levy when they should not be - if that is the case, those Umbrellas should be named so that individuals can ensure it doesn't happen to them. But, there is also an onus on individual contractors to ensure they are aware of what they are being charged.

Come April next year the agencies are liable for any tax not paid.

Even now if you discover that your umbrella isn't deducting the tax correctly it's the contractor who has to make up the difference.