Umbrella going into Administration-Liquidation

[malvolio]

Could FSCA be sued if any registered company proves to be not legit but sharks in disguise?

#justasking

That would depend on the FSCA's Articles and conditions of membership. They may not have (or even want) jurisdiction of a member's internal processes.

You could perhaps think that if the FSCA did what it appears to do and what many people think it actually does - i.e. regulate umbrella companies - none of these dodgy schemes would be members in the first place. However, that would probably need primary legislation.

[northernladuk]

That would depend on the FSCA's Articles and conditions of membership. They may not have (or even want) jurisdiction of a member's internal processes.

You could perhaps think that if the FSCA did what it appears to do and what many people think it actually does - i.e. regulate umbrella companies - none of these dodgy schemes would be members in the first place. However, that would probably need primary legislation.

Some serious questions would need asking. Their process for onboarding appears to be very expensive and time consuming and sets the bar too high for now outfits so it's a crap setup. If, after all that, they still let bad eggs through they should be held accountable. They are already shafting many small very well run legitimate outfits so to be seen to be taking money to (accidently) promote scam ubmrellas would be inexcusable.

[DolanContractorGroup]

Could FSCA be sued if any registered company proves to be not legit but sharks in disguise?

#justasking

I think that the barrier to entry is so high that non-legit companies wouldn't ever bother applying. No company like that would like to open up their books to auditors (EY, BDO, etc).

Thanks


Zeeshan

[madame SasGuru]

I think that the barrier to entry is so high that non-legit companies wouldn't ever bother applying. No company like that would like to open up their books to auditors (EY, BDO, etc).

Thanks


Zeeshan

You forget the margins that can be made when you are talking about 15% rather than £18 a week.

I’m not saying anything but that’s a hell of an incentive and I suspect it’s possible to run a legit umbrella while also running a tax scheme on the side - you just need to keep them suitable distanced when the auditor comes calling.

As an aside exactly how dodgy is the agency this poster is using?

[Pturner]

Update on earlier guys and thanks for the comments. Rang fcsa twice and phone just ringing so great service there! So called the agency I am planing to move to and asked about malta and Isle of Mann and was told they are connected and they could get me a higher take home if I want but I had to go through them for that to get someone to call me. This is after I told the girl on phone I didn't want any HMRC risk. I think agency is defo dodgey so going to the other agency used by end client and hope their umbrellas are better or I can use current one. Way to old for taking risks!!! Thanks again.

[Jared Farr]

<mod snip> and FCSA - What are they up to in the Isle of Man/Malta?

This https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ngement-2.html shows up as my second result when searching for Dark Blue..

So that leaves <mod snip> who are FCSA registered (so should be legit as my FCSA dislikes have little to do with tax avoidance more the fact they are f***ing clueless about what they need to do to clean up this mess of an industry).

Been looking through this forum at the uneasiness around choosing the right umbrella. Took a look at <mod snip> Umbrella on OpenCorporates, which is ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA WHEN CHOOSING AN UMBRELLA!!! - <mod snip> has holdings in the ISLE OF MAN and MALTA. If it's tax avoidance schemes you're looking to avoid, don't go for ,mod snip> - They're another reason as to why my view of the FCSA Quality Threshold has dropped (How did they get accredited???)

[wattaj]

How did they get accredited???

You have to ask?

[webberg]

Been looking through this forum at the uneasiness around choosing the right umbrella. Took a look at <mod snip> Umbrella on OpenCorporates, which is ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA WHEN CHOOSING AN UMBRELLA!!! - <mod snip> has holdings in the ISLE OF MAN and MALTA. If it's tax avoidance schemes you're looking to avoid, don't go for ,mod snip> - They're another reason as to why my view of the FCSA Quality Threshold has dropped (How did they get accredited???)

I think you'll find that there is NO CONNECTION between the entities carrying the "<mod snip>" name in IOM and Malta and the company in the UK.

(Or at least I was unable to make that connection when I researched it yesterday).

If you have PROOF that there is a connection and that is from a public source, can you share it please?

If you do not have proof and are merely assuming a connection because they share a name, then I suggest that you may be libeling the UK entity and possibly damaging their legitimate trading activities?

Can I suggest that you check your sources and if you are CERTAIN of connection, then leave your post up. If not, you might want to think about removing it?

I have no connection with any of the entities mentioned and have been known to call out those who practice to deceive from time to time. I am however of the view that those running legitimate umbrellas are to be commended for doing so in a market that has a number of sharp and possibly deliberately misleading practices masquerading as "normal".

[cojak]

I think you'll find that there is NO CONNECTION between the entities carrying the "<mod snip>" name in IOM and Malta and the company in the UK.

(Or at least I was unable to make that connection when I researched it yesterday).

If you have PROOF that there is a connection and that is from a public source, can you share it please?

If you do not have proof and are merely assuming a connection because they share a name, then I suggest that you may be libeling the UK entity and possibly damaging their legitimate trading activities?

Can I suggest that you check your sources and if you are CERTAIN of connection, then leave your post up. If not, you might want to think about removing it?

I have no connection with any of the entities mentioned and have been known to call out those who practice to deceive from time to time. I am however of the view that those running legitimate umbrellas are to be commended for doing so in a market that has a number of sharp and possibly deliberately misleading practices masquerading as "normal".

I've made that decision for him.

[eek]

From an umbrella company that is claiming not to be a scheme can I add the following phrases to run away from

• Matched Permanent Pay

and All payments are made through PAYE only does not mean that the entire payment has had tax paid on it.

Oh and if the website doesn't have a calculator on it I'm getting to the point where I think its dodgy as f**k.