Reply to: Garraway

[eek]

Yep but it's irrelevant. The bit I was after is that they got my details under false pretenses and then used them for a different purpose.

What I'm looking for is enough for my mate to get his boss interested in a very easy case (as all the work is done).

What jobserve currently want is mr awkward having enough information that he quickly goes away.

And from Jobserve tonight.....

Thank you for bringing this to our attention and providing us with this information.

I can confirm that we have found the company that were working on behalf of Garraway and we have suspended their account pending further investigation.

[eek]

So they've got one or all of: a separate legitimate presence, access to a body that has, put a fake presence up that looks legitimate but it's a front: of course Jobserve may be mistaken, telling porkies or plain incompetent.

Yep but it's irrelevant. The bit I was after is that they got my details under false pretenses and then used them for a different purpose.

What I'm looking for is enough for my mate to get his boss interested in a very easy case (as all the work is done).

What jobserve currently want is mr awkward having enough information that he quickly goes away.

[TykeMerc]

Jobserve have never had a customer called Garraway... curiouser and curiouser ....

So they've got one or all of: a separate legitimate presence, access to a body that has, put a fake presence up that looks legitimate but it's a front: of course Jobserve may be mistaken, telling porkies or plain incompetent.

[eek]

Spoke to information Commissioner....

Speaking to Jobserve for their registration details (not listed).

Jobserve have never had a customer called Garraway... curiouser and curiouser ....

[eek]

Spoke to information Commissioner....

Speaking to Jobserve for their registration details (not listed).

[eek]

Garraway

And the final confirmation

I believe you had registered with Job Serve, and as we are an employer you may have given rights for employers to contact you. If you haven't this may be something to take up with Job Serve

Which is great because it confirms the following:-

1) the source of the data
2) their means of accessing that data
3) how they got access to the data (by misrepresenting why they needed it)
4) the fact that they intentionally use it for purposes that are different from the rights I granted it for.

I don't think I've ever seen an excuse that is quite as damning as the above.

Now to start making the formal complaints.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Just had another email from them which has resulted in them admitting that they have misrepresented themselves to the job boards by pretending to be an agency.

Nice one Eek

[eek]

Just had another email from them which has resulted in them admitting that they have misrepresented themselves to the job boards by pretending to be an agency.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

We shouldn't give these schemes the oxygen of publicity. BUT they are dying - the referral bonus being offered is going up

Always a sign of desperation

[jbryce]

Garraway. Avoid

Found the winchester site
Nice to see Robert Venables QC make another appearance. Alongside
Not disclosable under DOTAS

to attempt to hide it from HMRC. I'm sure hiding it becomes evasion not just avoidance but heck I'm not stupid enough to trust others with my money...

Robert Venables is a serious, no messing about, legal tax expert. However. I'm not sure why that matters, as his advice can be trashed if the Government decides to retrospectively target any scheme anyway.

What matters is this.

1. Schemes do not work for mortal contractors. We do not have enough money to take the risk.

2. EBT schemes were 100% compliant with the law and backed by QC opinion. Most of these schemes, for example - Sanzar, disappeared as soon as HMRC started to pay attention. Garraway will disappear too, as soon as the heat is turned up.

3. DOTAS may not apply - but it is still a marketed avoidance scheme and will be impacted by the new powers.

4. If you really want to F*** your life up, join a scheme. If you don't then get a Ltd company or use an Umbrella.

We shouldn't give these schemes the oxygen of publicity. BUT they are dying - the referral bonus being offered is going up

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

He strikes me as a bit barking.

A little bit yes

[eek]

Probably best to avoid Winchester then as its

Queens Counsel reviewed - Based on the opinion of Robert Venables QC

which ignores the fact he laughed so much he didn't have the ability to say how bad it was..

[cojak]

Flippin' heck - he'd give Rumpole a run for his money....

Had we never had the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which firmly established that the Administration is not a law onto itself but that its actions can always be called into account in the Courts, had we not defeated the absolutist Napoleon Bonaparte, had Hitler won the Second World War and we were now a fascist society and if we did not have a Human Rights Act, HMRC's proposals would, perhaps, make some sense.

However - his comments further down the page make for some very interesting reading...

...all of us honest tax-advisers will heartily agree that consumers
 need protection against the "cowboys ".(1)

(1) None would agree more than I. For some reason, my name appears to carry some weight with the public. The result is that I am sometimes misrepresented, particularly on internet sites, as having endorsed a tax product on which I have not advised at all. Cleverer promoters have stated that my advice had been taken in relation to a product, which is literally true, but have omitted to mention that I had not in fact advised that it was fit for purpose.

So there you have it boys and girls, when the snake-oil salesman says that it has a QC's name on it, ask if that OC has explicitly stated that the scheme is fit for purpose.

[cojak]

He strikes me as a bit barking.

But I'm not surprised, he's made a lot of easy money putting his name to these schemes and HMRC are looking to put a bullet into the heads of his cash cows.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

And who doesn't seem that keen on HMRC's latest offerings http://www.taxchambers.com/sites/def...sultations.pdf

He strikes me as a bit barking.