• 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!

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.

Previously on "UmbrellaReclaim - anyone used this?"

Collapse

  • OJD
    replied
    I have received this update:

    QUOTE
    Dear Client,

    RE: COMPANY UPDATE

    We would like to inform you of the merger between A-Z Accountancy & Taxation Services Ltd (incorporating Umbrella Reclaim and Loan Charge Reclaim) and CP Law Associates Ltd
    It is our staunch belief that this merger will bring about only positive changes for everyone and will broaden our business platform to deliver a high-quality service to all our clients.

    We also believe that by combining our resources, this will make us a dominant player in the area of employment claims.

    CP Law Ltd will operate under the banner of C4J Ltd (Contractors for Justice) in isolation of any other Law Practice and the team will be headed up by our own in-house legal team managed by Aidan Loy an employment solicitor of 25 years standing.

    We hope that you are as excited as we are about this merger, and we would like to end in assuring you that whilst this has been going on in the background for a number of months it has not impacted upon the progress we have been makingon your potential claims against Umbrella Companies and/or Agencies.

    Lastly, C4J Ltd will write to you in the coming weeks to introduce themselves.

    Kind regards
    A-Z Accountancy & Taxation Services Ltd
    UNQUOTE


    Leave a comment:


  • Paralytic
    replied
    Originally posted by OJD View Post
    ...we have QC opinions from both sectors.
    I hope no-one is viewing that statement as an optimistic thing. Many have learned that QC opinions mean little when it comes to contractor remuneration; on the contrary, they have been used to convince people of something they otherwise would not have been convinced of. Not saying there's anything dodgy going on here, but I'd just ignore that bit of their response.

    Leave a comment:


  • OJD
    replied
    Originally posted by OJD View Post
    A reply I got from their solicitor:

    QUOTE
    Regarding the Danbro case, it appears the legal team were not citing the correct legislation or backing it up with the relevant case history. However, there is a good chance if the Danbro case were to go to appeal, the decision would be overturned.

    I would like to add, we have spent a lot of time and money ensuring both the employment and tax laws we are citing are accurate & we have QC opinions from both sectors. Please find below some case evidence from both holiday pay & unlawful deductions cases.

    https://www.aspirepartnership.co.uk/...ibunal-outcome

    https://assets.publishing.service.go...1_judgment.pdf

    https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/...g_offers_hope/
    UNQUOTE
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    And we go round in circles again.

    6Cats isn't a judgement it was a default win because no evidence was provided by the responder as it was cheaper to pay £800 rather than fight.

    The reason why they reference Blakely in that oblige way is because it didn't go to a tribunal in the end Microsoft Word - R Blakely - 3324211-2016 - Dismissal withdrawal Judgment.doc (publishing.service.gov.uk)

    While I understand what they are trying to do I really don't think they have much chance if the umbrella firm provided any paperwork.
    I think that’s some of the issues - some of us weren’t provided paperwork and even with paperwork, there’s still clear miss-selling and deception at play with the communication and coercion involved. Some of the stuff involved is very much akin to what you see with the PPI scam and even human trafficking regimes.

    6Cats case being a default win doesn’t preclude the fact it may have been won regardless. And it certainly
    doesn’t contradict the basis of the group claim.

    Ultimately, time will tell. I went into it feeling it was perhaps wishful thinking and too good to be true that I might see a massive rebate on the deductions I was never happy about (and challenged from the start only to be met with a load of flannel and open lies), but figured it was pretty minimal risk for me to find out and would prefer to be within the first tranche of claims if there were to be any success. Particularly as the view of Umbrella Reclaim is that it will almost certainly be settled before or out of court to prevent further claims; I think they are more keen to force industry/law change to prevent further exploitation.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by OJD View Post
    Reply I got:

    QUOTE
    Regarding the Danbro case, it appears the legal team were not citing the correct legislation or backing it up with the relevant case history. However, there is a good chance if the Danbro case were to go to appeal, the decision would be overturned.

    I would like to add, we have spent a lot of time and money ensuring both the employment and tax laws we are citing are accurate & we have QC opinions from both sectors. Please find below some case evidence from both holiday pay & unlawful deductions cases.

    https://www.aspirepartnership.co.uk/...ibunal-outcome

    https://assets.publishing.service.go...1_judgment.pdf

    https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/...g_offers_hope/
    UNQUOTE
    And we go round in circles again.

    6Cats isn't a judgement it was a default win because no evidence was provided by the responder as it was cheaper to pay £800 rather than fight.

    The reason why they reference Blakely in that oblige way is because it didn't go to a tribunal in the end Microsoft Word - R Blakely - 3324211-2016 - Dismissal withdrawal Judgment.doc (publishing.service.gov.uk) Heck aspire even have an article about it Blakely v On-Site Recruitment Solutions Ltd: On-Site settles in full ahead of fresh tribunal - Aspire Business Partnership (aspirepartnership.co.uk) which states no precedent set.

    While I understand what they are trying to do I really don't think they have much chance of getting anything on supposedly illegal deductions if the umbrella firm provided any paperwork. But the Pimlico cases opens up the chance of reclaiming holiday pay given how lax firms were in checking it was taken..
    Last edited by eek; 23 February 2022, 15:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • OJD
    replied
    A reply I got from their solicitor:

    QUOTE
    Regarding the Danbro case, it appears the legal team were not citing the correct legislation or backing it up with the relevant case history. However, there is a good chance if the Danbro case were to go to appeal, the decision would be overturned.

    I would like to add, we have spent a lot of time and money ensuring both the employment and tax laws we are citing are accurate & we have QC opinions from both sectors. Please find below some case evidence from both holiday pay & unlawful deductions cases.

    https://www.aspirepartnership.co.uk/...ibunal-outcome

    https://assets.publishing.service.go...1_judgment.pdf

    https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/...g_offers_hope/
    UNQUOTE
    Last edited by OJD; 23 February 2022, 14:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • OJD
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    What test cases? The reason why I found the D South one is because an IR35 "expert" on LinkedIn referenced it as a win and I went back to doublecheck that my memory wasn't wrong (and it wasn't).

    A first level tribunal doesn't set any precedent but can be used in subsequent cases for instance Mr South used 6Cats as an example (but it's a crap one because it was won by default - because it's not worth spending £1000 to defend a £628 claim).

    If Umbrella Reclaim think there are similar cases I would love to see them as they really, really, really aren't any where the judgement has been published (and they usually are).
    Which is exactly why (amongst other reasons) that individual claims can be lost so easily - the defendant will be able to fight it, complicate things, and make it too costly to pursue and address each argument raised.

    The other test cases were cited to me but unfortunately we were on the call for ages and I only took a mental note, which is now forgotten. But suffice to say, my concerns were addressed when I spoke to them.

    And as I said earlier, some of the thousands of claimants have payslips going back 20 years and the solicitors here are not on an hourly rate, so it's not that surprising it's taking time. But communication could certainly be better (which they acknowledged) and it seems like there will be progress soon. I believe the update next week-ish will outline the process for our case handlers to be allocated, amongst others.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by OJD View Post

    Also, it was always acknowledged that individual claims like this would likely be lost (for various valid reasons), and a group claim stood the best chance, which is yet to be put to the test. There are already previous individual test cases that were successful, which were what led to the group claim being initiated. Mr South appears to have elected to go it alone on the basis of his legal background, presumably to save the fee / % award and for expediency.
    What test cases? The reason why I found the D South one is because an IR35 "expert" on LinkedIn referenced it as a win and I went back to doublecheck that my memory wasn't wrong (and it wasn't).

    A first level tribunal doesn't set any precedent but can be used in subsequent cases for instance Mr South used 6Cats as an example (but it's a crap one because it was won by default - because it's not worth spending £1000 to defend a £628 claim).

    If Umbrella Reclaim think there are similar cases I would love to see them as they really, really, really aren't any where the judgement has been published (and they usually are).

    Leave a comment:


  • OJD
    replied
    Originally posted by OJD View Post

    Not fully read that yet but judging by the subsequent post, this was lost on technicalities re: poor paperworking for the court. Not uncommon. I have experience of the court process - I won a financial dispute case because of 2 key observations the judge raised herself on the matter. These 2 key points did not get raised by my "practicing qualified barrister" and solicitor (both recommended to me because they were highly regarded, apparently), despite my repeated promptings to them, because they didn't think they were pertinent.... Their incompetence almost cost me a further £100k+. So I wouldn't necessarily place much blind faith in Mr South purely on his qualifications.

    Also, it was always acknowledged that individual claims like this would likely be lost (for various valid reasons), and a group claim stood the best chance, which is yet to be put to the test. There are already previous individual test cases that were successful, which were what led to the group claim being initiated. Mr South appears to have elected to go it alone on the basis of his legal background, presumably to save the fee / % award and for expediency.

    It may well all be BS though regardless - Mr South's case may well kill it dead, I don't know. I'm going to speak to Umbrella Reclaim again today or tomorrow and will ask about Mr South, as well as their progress on the group claim.
    Just spoken to Umbrella Reclaim, had a long chat. They are allocating cases etc and an update will be out next week or soon after - they acknowledged it's overdue and apologised. They also confirmed what I said - Mr South vs Danbro is just one of many individual cases, many others have been successful recently, and Group claims also have a greater % of success for (it may not even get as far as court).

    Leave a comment:


  • OJD
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    Since the original post here and UmbrellaReclaim first appearing another Employment tribunal has been heard

    Mr D South v Danbro Employment Umbrella Ltd: 1600554/2020 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

    The important bit here is that Mr South is a qualified barrister and solicitor and this case seems to have been designed with the sole purpose of generating a test case.

    He completely and utterly lost....
    Not fully read that yet but judging by the subsequent post, this was lost on technicalities re: poor paperworking for the court. Not uncommon. I have experience of the court process - I won a financial dispute case because of 2 key observations the judge raised herself on the matter. These 2 key points did not get raised by my "practicing qualified barrister" and solicitor (both recommended to me because they were highly regarded, apparently), despite my repeated promptings to them, because they didn't think they were pertinent.... Their incompetence almost cost me a further £100k+. So I wouldn't necessarily place much blind faith in Mr South purely on his qualifications.

    Also, it was always acknowledged that individual claims like this would likely be lost (for various valid reasons), and a group claim stood the best chance, which is yet to be put to the test. There are already previous individual test cases that were successful, which were what led to the group claim being initiated. Mr South appears to have elected to go it alone on the basis of his legal background, presumably to save the fee / % award and for expediency.

    It may well all be BS though regardless - Mr South's case may well kill it dead, I don't know. I'm going to speak to Umbrella Reclaim again today or tomorrow and will ask about Mr South, as well as their progress on the group claim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bodger
    replied
    Reading through that Tribunal decision was amusing. This line in particular gave me a good chuckle!

    "The claimant has not provided the Tribunal with a copy of Section 7 of the HMRC Guidance relied upon. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to trawl the internet to find material the parties rely upon"

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Since the original post here and UmbrellaReclaim first appearing another Employment tribunal has been heard

    Mr D South v Danbro Employment Umbrella Ltd: 1600554/2020 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

    The important bit here is that Mr South is a qualified barrister and solicitor and this case seems to have been designed with the sole purpose of generating a test case.

    He completely and utterly lost....

    Leave a comment:


  • OJD
    replied
    Originally posted by UmbrellasOut View Post
    Have an ongoing claim with these guys. No idea what’s going on. End of June they said final docs were required from me to proceed with the claim. Some updates since but still no real info as to what’s happening. They seem to be a bit shady and don’t want anyone to call or email as they say it’ll slow them down. Something doesn’t feel right.
    Similar experience. Phoned a few times and been told similar, and I requested a general update to everyone be sent out and they said they would look to do this, possibly Feb or March I think they told me.

    Whilst it does sound shady, I uploaded all my docs last summer and they kept ringing me to chase this or that particular document, and we got into conversation about it before they realised I had supplied other material that sufficed their needs for this and that. I don't think they would have done that if it was a smash and grab scam (it's unnecessary extra work for them). And why go to the trouble of taking on those claimants who don't pay the £99 (ie those who forfeit an extra % in exchange for a no fee basis) - seems like a lot of admin over their docs if they don't plan to work on it, as well as cost (eg advertising space on Talksport etc).

    They are associated to McFaddens LLP who are a legit legal firm (it seems), so I just think that considering we are paying just a £99 fixed fee each (sometimes no fee) it's not exactly their usual hourly rate for legal work, and probably having to work on it on the side of their £ per hour legal work, which does take time. I uploaded loads of docs going back years (including lengthy contracts etc) so with potentially hundreds of claimants it can take time I imagine. They may just have one solicitor in the office going through it on an ad hoc basis, all on top of their other work. Presumably the legit legal firm would have to refund the fees if they want to keep practicing, individually or otherwise.

    All that said, Companies House does show the company as active but their most recent accounts (October 2021) showed a dormant account with a £100 balance, which seems strange to me..... which account did all the £99 fees go into....?

    Anyone else have an update, progress report, or feedback on this?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by UmbrellasOut View Post
    Have an ongoing claim with these guys. No idea what’s going on. End of June they said final docs were required from me to proceed with the claim. Some updates since but still no real info as to what’s happening. They seem to be a bit shady and don’t want anyone to call or email as they say it’ll slow them down. Something doesn’t feel right.
    Never.....

    I don't believe it.

    Leave a comment:


  • UmbrellasOut
    replied
    Have an ongoing claim with these guys. No idea what’s going on. End of June they said final docs were required from me to proceed with the claim. Some updates since but still no real info as to what’s happening. They seem to be a bit shady and don’t want anyone to call or email as they say it’ll slow them down. Something doesn’t feel right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maltron
    replied
    HI

    We have a claim going through with these at present. They understand that it is unlikely they will get the money from the Umbrella company so they are acting against the Agency. I am not sure what will happen but the way I see it is it's worth finding out for £99.

    They seem a bit slow but they do give updates when requested and are pushing for a court date once everyone in the group has provided the required evidence.

    Hope this helps

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X