Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

agency umbrella Company making unfair? Deductions From my Wages??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2437 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I joined a recruitment agency,

upon registering they simply told me I'd be paid through another company

- no other information given.

 

 

Payroll companies are nothing new to me,

I know lots of agencies use them so I thought little of it.

 

 

Got my first payslip and noticed some dodgy deductions on there,

turns out the other company is an umbrella company and the hourly rate I was told by the agency was actually the uplifted rate paid to the umbrella company to cover all of the deductions, just to be clear none of this was explained to me by the agency.

 

My contract with the agency does state that I am not their employee.

The umbrella company have confirmed that they are my employer.

I have not signed any contract with them.

 

 

Upon asking for a copy of my contract they sent me a form I completed with my bank details on it, it has no terms or conditions of any kind.

When I asked them to confirm it to be my contract they did indeed confirm it to be.

 

After finally getting the details of all of the deductions from them,

some of which are not even itemised on the payslip,

I told them I believe they have made unlawful deductions from my wages as set out in sections 13 to 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and asked them how they wished to proceed.

 

 

They then sent me a copy of an unsigned form with all of their terms and conditions of employment on it, referring to one section which allows them to make the deductions.

 

 

They are claiming that I had to accept these terms and conditions when logging onto their online portal.

This may or may not be of consequence but I logged onto it thinking that was the only way I could see my payslips and without knowing at the time that they would be classed as my employer.

 

where do I stand with this?

Can they really use the terms and conditions on their online portal as an employment contract?

Would a tribunal uphold this bull****?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you click to say you read something, yup, they can use that!

 

what deductions do you think are unlawful?

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A fee for processing payroll, holiday pay deducted from gross and something they called an apprenticeship levy.

 

I have just been looking at the terms and conditions from their online portal, in the section about deductions it doesn't mention any of the above. It does mention holiday pay being deducted in another section though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they don't look ridiculous to me..... they dont have a choice about the levy, that's a tax for employers over a certain size. The fee for processing payroll, they're not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. If the costs are excessive, might be time for a new job and try and get direct employment.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about them getting paid for their services, as far as I'm concerned that should be between them and the agency.

 

 

What happened to good old fashioned payroll departments,

imagine being asked by an employer to fund it for them,

that is essentially what's happening.

What next, shall we pay their marketing budgets too.

 

 

The apprenticeship levy as stated is a tax for employers, not employees, why am I paying it.

It might not be ridiculous by the standards of umbrella companies,

but to an employee duped into this nonsense it is very much so.

 

 

Neither of these are mentioned in their terms and conditions, I don't see how it can be legal.

 

On another point, slightly off topic, I didn't pay any income tax even though I earned well over the threshold.

 

 

They claimed tax relief for expenses on my behalf.

I didn't ask for this and I don't agree with it.

 

 

I'm one of those weird people that wants to pay their way in full and help fund all the hospitals, schools, emergency services, welfare, etc, etc. I don't even know where to begin with that.

 

Welcome to ****** ******** ******** Online Portal

The online portal will allow you to enter and track expense claims, access historical and current pay slip information and change any personal details that we hold for you.

Please click on the link below and choose a password to activate your online account.

[link]

Please ensure that you make a note of your user ID and password as this will be required every time you log into the online portal.

Following your registration you may access the portal at:

 

www.**********************.co.uk

Kind Regards

 

Registration Team

 

info@**********************.co.uk

01*** *** ***

 

 

This is the email I received, redacted of course, from the umbrella company inviting me to login to the online portal.

 

 

Considering they said it will allow mw to view my payslips,

is there not a case for me to say that anything I agreed to upon logging into it was done so under duress?

Link to post
Share on other sites

umbrella company = basically self employed.

I think you really do need to have a more thorough read of the T&Cs.

 

This is the email I received, redacted of course, from the umbrella company inviting me to login to the online portal. Considering they said it will allow mw to view my payslips, is there not a case for me to say that anything I agreed to upon logging into it was done so under duress?

 

Get away, that's just silly.

 

Legally duress is stuff like "we have a gun pointed at your wife's head." Not "I can't be arsed reading the instructions or calling to ask you for a differnt way to view my payslips."

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but I was careful to make sure they confirmed that I was their employee.

 

well of course.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_company

 

You've signed up to a thing you don't like and are now arguing the toss about their perfectly legal practices.

 

 

What are you looking for?

A day in court?

A cake?

 

 

Someone to tell you you're not bound by anything you can't be bothered reading?

 

Let's wait and see if any of those come along.....

 

Ok maybe not harsh enough for duress but undue influence.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_influence_in_English_law

 

No.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it reasonable to expect that T&Cs on an online portal which you've been asked to sign up to to be able to view payslips and file expenses will cover anything other than the use of that portal, let alone constitute an employment contract?

 

Of course I didn't read the bloody thing I'm a normal guy with some semblance of a life.

 

I can't even be sure I ticked a box for it.

 

I can't even be sure that there is even an option to view those T&Cs when signing up and that the company isn't just making it up on the spot to cover their arses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I didn't read the bloody thing I'm a normal guy with some semblance of a life........

 

But unwise enough to read a contract.

You must of put a tick in a box otherwise you cant register.

 

If you dont agree to the t n c then don't work for them. You have a choice. Use your feet.

 

Your looking for a scapegoat when your the only one to blame.

 

You didn't read something and now even tho you had to read them you dont agree to what you agreed to.

 

Who's fault do you think that is??

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course I didn't read the bloody thing I'm a normal guy with some semblance of a life.

.

 

Really? Right now your semblance of life appears to consist of tilting at windmills. If you didn't know that you signed up, then more fool you. It should be a valuable lesson in reading things before you agree to something, but it probably won't be. Being too lazy to read your own conditions is down to you. And if you didn't know what you were signing up to, you should have asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for any kind of scapegoat, it's not about blame.

 

Yes from a legal point of view it's my fault, I'm an honest guy and in turn expect others to be honest. In matters like this that's clearly a fault.

 

All I wanted was the money promised to me in person.

 

As for the last post no, before this I had never heard of an umbrella company.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying I should be happy to not pay income tax? Therefore I should count my blessings and shut up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for any kind of scapegoat, it's not about blame.

 

Yes from a legal point of view it's my fault, I'm an honest guy and in turn expect others to be honest. In matters like this that's clearly a fault.

 

All I wanted was the money promised to me in person.

 

As for the last post no, before this I had never heard of an umbrella company.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying I should be happy to not pay income tax? Therefore I should count my blessings and shut up?

 

No. I am saying that it doesn't matter what your complaint is. What you want is not going to happen. Somewhere in this process you signed up to the umbrella company - your agency couldn't have passed your details to them unless you did. Unless you passed your details to them, in which case you did it directly. You might not like umbrella companies, but they operate strictly within the law, and you didn't end up having your money paid through one unless you agreed to this, somewhere.

 

And you pay income tax if income tax is due. Umbrella companies do not flout tax regulations. You may be able to claim some expenses against tax, but any self-employed person can do that, which is what you are. You pay the umbrella company to act on your behalf add the employer - they aren't actually the employer.

 

Umbrella companies have routinely been used by agencies for many years now. They are a familiar part of the contracting landscape. And they operate professionally and legally - whether or not you like them. There is no way that they have simply signed you up without permission. But if you wish to withdraw your permission, you may, by giving up the work. The agency are under no obligation to allow you to receive the money directly or by any other method. And most, if you won't use an umbrella company, require evidence of your own company status trading. In which case toy wool set up a company and pay your own accountant etc - to claim all the tax allowances that the umbrella company is claiming for you. I'm sure you're really one of the few people who rejoices in all the taxes you have to pay, so you'll be pleased to know that you'll be paying all the taxes you owe just the same; and that wanting to pay more tax isn't a legitimate reason to claim an unlawful deduction against a company that haven't unlawfully deducted anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in short, they are one of the sh!tty parts of the gig economy. To avoid such companies you will have to change the sort of work you do.

 

I'm not sure I would agree. You can set up your own company and sort these things yourself if you want to. If you want to spend your time doing your accounts and sorting out your own taxes then you can do so. Most people have better things to do with their time and money than this, and are happy to go with the arrangement. They work for a lot of people. And don't for some. But that is true of anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...