Clarity is back as an FCSA member

[eek]

At the risk of dragging this thread back on topic......

Clarity may have regained their FCSA membership, but I've just had an email from PSR/AMS to say that because of new legislation "which introduces ‘Joint and Several Liability’ within the umbrella industry" they're cutting their list of approved umbrellas, and Clarity is getting the boot anyway.

I will refer you to my comment last night as to what I believe the criteria used in selecting that list of approved umbrellas was.

I would make 100% sure that you are paid within a week of your timesheet being approved if I was you..

[Paracelsus]

They can have FCSA membership all they want, but they are naive if they think offshore holdings are normal, and anybody defending that isn't to be trusted.

What about Amazon, Meta etc? Seems to be quite normal for large companies to squirrel profits away offshore if they can get away with it.
Is there a specific issue with the Cypriot aspect as opposed to the usual ROI/Guernsey etc ?

[Nothing to see here]

What about Amazon, Meta etc? Seems to be quite normal for large companies to squirrel profits away offshore if they can get away with it.
Is there a specific issue with the Cypriot aspect as opposed to the usual ROI/Guernsey etc ?

I've been reading over the various threads about Clarity (and don't forget there were another 3 umbrellas removed and reinstated at the same time) and I can't actually see anything that confirms that the reason for their removal was down to the foreign ownership. Maybe I've missed something.

As far as the FCSA codes are concerned, as long as no more than 25% of the brollies' business is carried out overseas there there's no reason that foreign ownership should be an issue. I'm pretty sure that Clarity, I4, Numbermill and Payments Pro are all based in the UK and there's no suggestion that they've upped sticks and moved abroad.

I think there's more to it - I just can't figure out what it is.

[WTFH]

I think there's more to it - I just can't figure out what it is.

It could be that someone misunderstood the FCSA rules and made accusations incorrectly.
Perhaps there is more to you than meets the eye, or are you just deliberately trolling and stirring the pot while pretending to be some anonymous forum user.

[Nothing to see here]

It could be that someone misunderstood the FCSA rules and made accusations incorrectly.
Perhaps there is more to you than meets the eye, or are you just deliberately trolling and stirring the pot while pretending to be some anonymous forum user.

There's a lot for me to unpack in those two sentences.

You may be right about the FCSA rules comment. But that said, I've not seen anyone actually accuse any of the 4 companies of anything other than being majority foreign owned which is no issue as far as I understand. There's not been any suggestion of non-compliance (and to be frank I'd be absolutely amazed if Clarity was doing anything inappropriate under Lucy's watch).

As for trolling, I'm merely trying to get others thoughts on what could be the root cause. I've worked in the sector for more years than I care to mention and obviously people talk to each other. In this case I'm at a loss as to what has gone on and given that my livelihood depends on a robust, transparent and compliant umbrella sector, I think my curiosity is justified.

I don't think there's any more to me than meets the eye. Clearly I am an anonymous forum user and will remain so.

[courtg9000]

im nothing to the brolly side of things, I have no investment in it or skin in the game. I have no need for one but I am concerned - well more interested than concerned to be fair about this offshore brouhaha on this.
Offshore ownership of shareholdings is nothing new in pretty much any sector. Lichtenstein/Luxembourg/CI - full of it. Some have better reps than others. I know that Private Equity currently has a big liking for an RoI/Luxembourg combo for example. The Isle of Man has a certain attraction to certain parts of society in our green and pleasant land too!
There must be a lot more than meets the eye on this one. For what on the face of it seems to be a fairly standardish deal with shareholders taking advantages of certain jurisdictions. These deals happen every day. Are we all just as concerned about the shareholders in the places we do the weekly shop? fill the car up? drink alcohol? Whats specific about the umbrella sector?

[cojak]

Clarity was bought out by a Cypriot company. FCSA dropped them from their approved list. Contractors were removed from Clarity by agencies because of this drop, thus causing a financial loss. Clarity was then re-entered onto the FCSA approval list.

So, apart from the dropping of contractors, the reputational hit to both parties and the subsequent financial loss to Clarity, things are back to the way they were.

I would imagine that there are things going on behind the scenes, but I very much doubt that we will be privy to them before the dust has settled (if then). You can guess all you want, but guess is just a guess.

[cojak]

These deals happen every day. Are we all just as concerned about the shareholders in the places we do the weekly shop? fill the car up? drink alcohol? Whats specific about the umbrella sector?

The weekly shop does not put us in HMRC’s cross-hairs for years at a time if our vodka brand is owned by an IoM company or our eggs are produced by Maltese chickens, so you are comparing apples to oranges.