Reply to: Now this could be interesting...Chris Bryce new CEO of FCSA

[eek]

There's still a gap where a payment to an individual can be manipulated so the RTI looks correct, and which can only be closed by open banking which, as you agree, is very unlikely to happen. And the challenge is not actually regulating genuine umbrellas, it's identifying and discrediting the ones who aren't.

And the people suffering from all this are not the highly paid, well informed knowledge economy workers and engineers...

Open Banking isn't a problem for legitimate umbrellas - my point was you wouldn't want to give HMRC access to your bank account but you could send the RTI files to the trusted 3rd party certification service you've given readonly open banking access to.

Edit to add - the whole point here is that any service that checks the end result is better than an accreditation that works on the assumption that the processes witnessed are being followed.

Your typical none FCSA / PP member will argue that they don't qualify for membership of FCSA / PP because of XYZ (in the case of the FCSA reasons including not having enough capital, not being around x years or not enough people on payroll). The entire point is that this bypasses all those arguments - once you've been going a month the 3rd party has enough information to be sure you are above board.

It's easy to see if an umbrella is dodgy or not when the answer is

Give us all your RTI submissions from December 6th onwards and we can tell instantly if it matches the payment you sent to HMRC on January 14th.

[malvolio]

Go back to my first post on here - there is a (forthcoming) solution that provides real time feedback to agencies that everything about an umbrella firm is above board:

1) the RTI submission is correct
2) payment to worker matches RTI submission
3) the payment received from the agency matches the RTI submission (and nothing has gone walkabout)
4) Monthly Payments to HMRC / Pensions matches RTI and PAPDIS submissions.

Of course agencies only see points 1 to 3 for their own workers but they do see summary details for all umbrellas using the system and have the reassurance that 1-3 is occurring for all workers using that umbrella working for other agencies.

If an umbrella provides that information there is zero need for an agency to be concerned regarding the umbrella because there are few ways that the Umbrella can pull tricks when every individual payment is being automatically sanity and double checked.

Surprisingly HMRC can't actually do that because it requires open banking and no one is going to give HMRC direct access to their bank account - an independent 3rd party however...

mudskipper - classic Eek is walking in fully prepared ready to completely change the rules the market works with.

There's still a gap where a payment to an individual can be manipulated so the RTI looks correct, and which can only be closed by open banking which, as you agree, is very unlikely to happen. And the challenge is not actually regulating genuine umbrellas, it's identifying and discrediting the ones who aren't.

And the people suffering from all this are not the highly paid, well informed knowledge economy workers and engineers...

[Paralytic]

Hang on. Someone told me back in November and I kept very quiet about the fact...

I don't think it was the fact you knew; it was the need to (repeatedly?) tell people you knew.

[eek]

But if contractors could work through their own brolly - wouldn't that mean more open to 'dodgy' broillies etc?
I know many don't like rec agencies having a PSL or choosing a FCSA brollie but doesn't that reduce the risk of choosing some 'dodgy' brollie off google adwords?
HMRC need a compliance stamp and those are the only ones used for payroll - with no restrictions from any employer/agency. But yeah I know if you rely on HMRC....

Go back to my first post on here - there is a (forthcoming) solution that provides real time feedback to agencies that everything about an umbrella firm is above board:

1) the RTI submission is correct
2) payment to worker matches RTI submission
3) the payment received from the agency matches the RTI submission (and nothing has gone walkabout)
4) Monthly Payments to HMRC / Pensions matches RTI and PAPDIS submissions.

Of course agencies only see points 1 to 3 for their own workers but they do see summary details for all umbrellas using the system and have the reassurance that 1-3 is occurring for all workers using that umbrella working for other agencies.

If an umbrella provides that information there is zero need for an agency to be concerned regarding the umbrella because there are few ways that the Umbrella can pull tricks when every individual payment is being automatically sanity and double checked.

Surprisingly HMRC can't actually do that because it requires open banking and no one is going to give HMRC direct access to their bank account - an independent 3rd party however...

mudskipper - classic Eek is walking in fully prepared ready to completely change the rules the market works with.

[saptastic]

How does the FCSA evolve? It's designed for a market where the agency picks who to work through - that may or may not be how the market is structured going forward (personally I hope it isn't and contractors can work through their preferred umbrella because the tax avoidance concerns that the FCSA pray upon have disappeared).

The BEIS / Treasury consultation will dictate how the market works going forward. It's clear where a number of the problems are but a lot of those are going to be hard to fix.

Were you wishing to attack umbrellas their use by agencies to force people to opt out of agency regulations is 1 point I would be emphasising were anyone responding to the consultation with comments.

But if contractors could work through their own brolly - wouldn't that mean more open to 'dodgy' broillies etc?
I know many don't like rec agencies having a PSL or choosing a FCSA brollie but doesn't that reduce the risk of choosing some 'dodgy' brollie off google adwords?
HMRC need a compliance stamp and those are the only ones used for payroll - with no restrictions from any employer/agency. But yeah I know if you rely on HMRC....

[eek]

Classic eek.

Hang on. Someone told me back in November and I kept very quiet about the fact...

[eek]

IPSE was the king of old boys club wasn't it.
Chris obviously knows the industry really well so that is a good starting point.
FCSA very different to IPSE though I assume - standards trade body vs lobbying trade body
Or will the FCSA evolve?

How does the FCSA evolve? It's designed for a market where the agency picks who to work through - that may or may not be how the market is structured going forward (personally I hope it isn't and contractors can work through their preferred umbrella because the tax avoidance concerns that the FCSA pray upon have disappeared).

The BEIS / Treasury consultation will dictate how the market works going forward. It's clear where a number of the problems are but a lot of those are going to be hard to fix.

Were you wishing to attack umbrellas their use by agencies to force people to opt out of agency regulations is 1 point I would be emphasising were anyone responding to the consultation with comments.

[mudskipper]

And I've known Mr Bryce has been arriving for ages (won't say who told me first but the same person has been working with the people doing the real time method mentioned above).

Classic eek.

[saptastic]

Being careful here

He's an improvement on the previous guy but Chris is going to find his job is very different from what he thought it was - hint we joke that the FCSA is an old boy's club because it's designed for a particular task - it could have stepped up multiple times to fix the industry but it's members never wanted that - why do you think Julia left in the first place...

IPSE was the king of old boys club wasn't it.
Chris obviously knows the industry really well so that is a good starting point.
FCSA very different to IPSE though I assume - standards trade body vs lobbying trade body
Or will the FCSA evolve?

[eek]

assume you are referring to this: https://www.contractoruk.com/news/00..._ceo_fcsa.html

Being careful here

He's an improvement on the previous guy but Chris is going to find his job is very different from what he thought it was - hint we joke that the FCSA is an old boy's club because it's designed for a particular task - it could have stepped up multiple times to fix the industry but it's members never wanted that - why do you think Julia left in the first place...

[saptastic]

assume you are referring to this: https://www.contractoruk.com/news/00..._ceo_fcsa.html

[malvolio]

I have always questioned the value of FCSA in that I cannot see how some members managed to become members in view of the compliance regime that certainly seemed to be touted at one point (though I'm not sure if it still is). Apart from a badge I am not sure about it. I am not sure I trust the badge either. As in, what happens if I do not trust the badge?
I am struggling to see the value of a number of business "membership" organisations recently though. Some research I have been doing quietly recently tells me that such organisations are hugely out of favour at the moment. I think some may struggle rather heavily soon.

Actually I do agree. With the shift to Section 10 and the near death of Section 8, any lobbying would have to start with the large clients, and that simply isn't going to happen, if only because other than a slight admin overhead their gross costs are remaining much the same. And let's face it, 90% of contractors haven't a scoobie about all the pitfalls that surround them. As a result most of the contractor-facing organisations and service providers are going to struggle.

FCSA is in a slightly different place. While the Mk 1 version was an abject failure, and the revised version has a long way to go to root out both the cowboys and the clones, they are probably best placed to ensure that contractors are more critical about the services that umbrellas are offering them. And we both know Chris isn't scared of windmills...

[courtg9000]

I have always questioned the value of FCSA in that I cannot see how some members managed to become members in view of the compliance regime that certainly seemed to be touted at one point (though I'm not sure if it still is). Apart from a badge I am not sure about it. I am not sure I trust the badge either. As in, what happens if I do not trust the badge?
I am struggling to see the value of a number of business "membership" organisations recently though. Some research I have been doing quietly recently tells me that such organisations are hugely out of favour at the moment. I think some may struggle rather heavily soon.

[malvolio]

Lol no pressure there then!

No, none at all!!

[lucyclarityumbrella]

FCSA has a new CEO. Some bloke who knows quite a bit about contracting and IR35 for a change. Between him and Lucy, they may start to make some sense.

Lol no pressure there then!