Claim Back Monies From Your Umbrella

[BenDover]

I pity the client in that case but it does mean that no client is going to be offering anything other than fixed term PAYE contracts in the future...

I totally agree, the client has done nothing wrong. I was told that kickbacks to the agency from the brolly was another thing that captures them.

I think it positive we have some way of claiming back cash, I will take the punt at £100 because of what I stand to get back if it goes my way. I bet the builders etc. will go for this in a big way as to them guys it will feel like free money...lol

[eek]

I totally agree, the client has done nothing wrong. I was told that kickbacks to the agency from the brolly was another thing that captures them.

I think it positive we have some way of claiming back cash, I will take the punt at £100 because of what I stand to get back if it goes my way. I bet the builders etc. will go for this in a big way as to them guys it will feel like free money...lol

Did you see my last post - this hasn't been contested in any tribunal - the money was paid because no defence was submitted to a tribunal.

[BenDover]

Did you see my last post - this hasn't been contested in any tribunal - the money was paid because no defence was submitted to a tribunal.

I wonder why it was not contested?

[BenDover]

I wonder why it was not contested?

Could it be they knew they had no defence or that they did not want to add court cost? Very odd they should roll over so easy.

[NotAllThere]

Or it could be they didn't want to risk a precedent being set. Even if you've a great case, it can be cheaper to settle. The law is not usually black and white.

[eek]

Or it could be they didn't want to risk a precedent being set. Even if you've a great case, it can be cheaper to settle. The law is not usually black and white.

It really was cheaper to settle - see Mr P Weldon v 6CATS UK Ltd: 2410288/2019 - GOV.UK which shows that the total awarded was a mere £1512.31. But it does mean that there is zero precedent set by the case which is remarkable given how important and precedent setting Umbrella Reclaim are claiming the judgement was.

[BenDover]

It really was cheaper to settle - see Mr P Weldon v 6CATS UK Ltd: 2410288/2019 - GOV.UK which shows that the total awarded was a mere £1512.31. But it does mean that there is zero precedent set by the case which is remarkable given how important and precedent setting Umbrella Reclaim are claiming the judgement was.

I have been thinking about this one overnight and I get what you say, a very easy case to win but.....what IF they do it again? It's worth a gamble in my opinion so I will have a go and I am in no way endorsing this as I have no idea of what will happen but worth a crack.

I will let you know how it goes as and when I hear anything.

[eek]

I have been thinking about this one overnight and I get what you say, a very easy case to win but.....what IF they do it again? It's worth a gamble in my opinion so I will have a go and I am in no way endorsing this as I have no idea of what will happen but worth a crack.

I will let you know how it goes as and when I hear anything.

They may settle over £5k or even £10k - the great unknown is when that group claim becomes £100,000+ will the umbrellas (or FCSA but they won't) fight the claim or just go bankrupt (taking the money received that day into administration so that a different set of contractors lose out).

My real point is that the law firm are trying to bring a case action claiming a precedent that doesn't actually exist. And while I dislike how umbrellas work they are a necessary evil that this sort of claim isn't going to fix - my fear is that even this campaign will give the tax dodgying scheme firms another route into conning people.

[BenDover]

They may settle over £5k or even £10k - the great unknown is when that group claim becomes £100,000+ will the umbrellas (or FCSA but they won't) fight the claim or just go bankrupt (taking the money received that day into administration so that a different set of contractors lose out).

My real point is that the law firm are trying to bring a case action claiming a precedent that doesn't actually exist. And while I dislike how umbrellas work they are a necessary evil that this sort of claim isn't going to fix - my fear is that even this campaign will give the tax dodgying scheme firms another route into conning people.

A good point you raised about money getting caught up and lost should brolly go bust, they did point this out to me and offered me an option to overcome that being an issue. No good for me now as the world of perm has taken hold but they do have a brolly they have partnered up with where NHS/Care workers pay £12.50 (don't quote me as I may have heard wrong) per timesheet and this company is a new company which cannot be claimed against and operates to all the guidelines 'Umbrella Reclaim' have in place. It is all something to do with the brolly receiving the correct paperwork from the agency or something like that.

Anyway, they now have my dosh so let's see, fingers crossed they come up trumps! Lol

[Hanbanthankyoumam]

A good point you raised about money getting caught up and lost should brolly go bust, they did point this out to me and offered me an option to overcome that being an issue. No good for me now as the world of perm has taken hold but they do have a brolly they have partnered up with where NHS/Care workers pay £12.50 (don't quote me as I may have heard wrong) per timesheet and this company is a new company which cannot be claimed against and operates to all the guidelines 'Umbrella Reclaim' have in place. It is all something to do with the brolly receiving the correct paperwork from the agency or something like that.

Anyway, they now have my dosh so let's see, fingers crossed they come up trumps! Lol

Sounds like this whole thing has been set up to pass contractors to an affiliate brolly. All compliant umbrellas should work the same; so the fact they've said their special one is out of reclaim scope, has massive alarm bells ringing for me!