No Key Information Document - Your umbrella has a big problem

[JustKeepSwimming]

Good luck with that - Agencies are going to have to move to advertising PAYE rates in a hurry...

I don't think the agencies catch any liability with these cases?

It's where I'm a little confused. Agency could promise the moon and if the umbrella doesn't categorically define the moon then they would be liable for what the agent has said? Probably have to add to the KID 'Anything said between you and the snake sales men agents should be disregarded in its entirety'.

[eek]

I don't think the agencies catch any liability with these cases?

It's where I'm a little confused. Agency could promise the moon and if the umbrella doesn't categorically define the moon then they would be liable for what the agent has said? Probably have to add to the KID 'Anything said between you and the snake sales men agents should be disregarded in its entirety'.

True - but if (as I suspect) the advertised rate is the important bit here it's going to be essential that agencies actual advertise something plausible. Otherwise the wisest thing for an umbrella firm to do is to refuse to handle the payments (because £95 a month doesn't cover £x,000 of employment costs)..

[eek]

Article https://www.contractoruk.com/news/00...eudo_kids.html for anyone interested..

[andymalory]

Just discovered on linkedIn that an employment tribunal has finally made a decision on what happens if your agency / umbrella fail to provide a Key Information Document (KID) before you start work...

https://assets.publishing.service.go...nd_reasons.pdf

It's not pleasant reading for Umbrella firms - and they really will need to make sure an accurate Key Information Document is provided alongside the contract...

Edit - it also means that Inside IR35 or Umbrella rates have no meaning in law....

Doesn't it just mean that these terms were not defined?

Can anyone tell if the umbrella company in question is a member of FCSA?

[eek]

Doesn't it just mean that these terms were not defined?

Can anyone tell if the umbrella company in question is a member of FCSA?

DNS were thrown out of the FCSA last year.

But it's worth reading Carolyn' article from earlier today - the issue is that the term umbrella rate / inside IR35 rate is so poorly defined and explained that I suspect most people could go to a tribunal and win a case for illegal deductions using this case as an example of how to play it....

[youngguy]

Article https://www.contractoruk.com/news/00...eudo_kids.html for anyone interested..

This is part of the wider issue that an umbrella is a "disguised employer" and nothing quite stands up to scrutiny. I remember the first umbrella contract I reviewed for an inside role, which had clauses about my uniform, drs notes for sickness etc. I wrote to them asking to remove these classes in my contract and their response was " we have over 3000 employees, not all clauses will apply to everyone".

When I logged onto their portal to get a payslip I saw I had the ability to raise a H&S issue and somewhere else to request a workplace risk assessment.....that was tempting just to see how they responded!

[JustKeepSwimming]

This is part of the wider issue that an umbrella is a "disguised employer" and nothing quite stands up to scrutiny. I remember the first umbrella contract I reviewed for an inside role, which had clauses about my uniform, drs notes for sickness etc. I wrote to them asking to remove these classes in my contract and their response was " we have over 3000 employees, not all clauses will apply to everyone".

When I logged onto their portal to get a payslip I saw I had the ability to raise a H&S issue and somewhere else to request a workplace risk assessment.....that was tempting just to see how they responded!

How does that actually work come to think of it.

If umbrella is your employer, then any employee working from home is entitled to equipment etc?

[northernladuk]

How does that actually work come to think of it.

If umbrella is your employer, then any employee working from home is entitled to equipment etc?

There is no legal requirement for an employer to provide equipment. You need to think carefully about what benefits are offered to employees by the company to aid productivity and those they are legally entitled to just by the fact they are employed. The vast majority are benefits from the company as just that, a benefit of working there to be a happy productive employee.

You also have to consider that employment through an umbrella isn't 'real' employment. It's just a mechanism to get paid so you are going to get the absolute legal minimum because it's just too much hassle for the umbrella to provide it for no benefit. They cycle to work scheme for example.

[andymalory]

It's pretty clear saying '£700/d inside' is a confusing statement to vast majority of people. Most people would assume that £700 is their daily wage. So unless either the agent or the brolly can show they have explained what 'inside' (replace for whatever terminology they are using that day), then they don't have the workers consent to deduct employer costs.

This is the main problem - contractor thinks they are negotiating a pay rate, agency willingly knows they are not discussing the same thing. Client knowledge on this is a mixed bag in my experience. Clients either:

1) Know they are discussing their budgetary figure and assume everyone downstream knows the same
2) Think they are discussing the pay rate and don't know/don't care if this is different to what the contractor thinks (as everyone is doing the same aren't they, so it must be correct!)
3) Think the budgetary figure and pay rate is the same (they vaguely know about IR35 and the impact, and simply think rates were renegotiated up because of IT and employee's NI). Employer's NI hardly gets a mention in any organisational IR35 documentation

The umbrella company just does what its told as they are only one step higher than most contractors - i.e. they have no real power in this chain.

[JustKeepSwimming]

This is the main problem - contractor thinks they are negotiating a pay rate, agency willingly knows they are not discussing the same thing. Client knowledge on this is a mixed bag in my experience. Clients either:

1) Know they are discussing their budgetary figure and assume everyone downstream knows the same
2) Think they are discussing the pay rate and don't know/don't care if this is different to what the contractor thinks (as everyone is doing the same aren't they, so it must be correct!)
3) Think the budgetary figure and pay rate is the same (they vaguely know about IR35 and the impact, and simply think rates were renegotiated up because of IT and employee's NI). Employer's NI hardly gets a mention in any organisational IR35 documentation

The umbrella company just does what its told as they are only one step higher than most contractors - i.e. they have no real power in this chain.

Clients are clearly talking about total amount they will pay.

The agents are the salesman both to the client and to the employee. If there is no true meeting of minds between the employee and client then it is because of the agent, no one else. As it is the umbrella who takes all the liability there is no pressure on the agents to not be shady/competent.

So the new rulings are basically forcing umbrellas to step up and in effect challenge agents. The issue with that is the agent/umbrella relationship which has a whiff of brown envelopes under the table.

Best case is you will get the big umbrellas stepping up and clients demanding they are the only ones they will deal with. (As an aside, I'm not sure how legal enforcing certain umbrella actually is).

I can see a situation where an umbrella goes bust and the client is the one on the hook for unlawful deductions, ie the whole 'not an employee' subterfuge that is ir35 just falling apart, the uber rulings have circled that issue.

There is no legal requirement for an employer to provide equipment.

You sure that's true? If an employee is partial blind and needs adaptive equipment to do their job (software/display etc), then surely that reasonable adjustment must be met by the employer? In reality it is currently the client that is fulfilling that obligation but that doesn't mean it's not actually the employer, umbrella, who is liable.