provident agents [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

Stony_Broke

Wise move, that is unless you would be happy fighting off knife wielding muggers in dark alleys at night, or rancid dogs, gangs of druggies and irate customers, whilst scorching in the sun, freezing in the snow and getting drenched in the rain. Not forgetting to smile of course when you're squelching on a doorstep with water dripping down your nose, soaking wet papers and a non-paying customer remarks, "oh its alright for you, you're just in the car all day, I had to walk to the school", grrrrrrrrrr.

Stony_Broke

no_issue wrote: »

hi all

Do any of you guys know if anyone has taken legal advice over the fines?
A few agents in NI have and were told by a solicitor that they have a good case but they really need to speak to a barrister who's an expert in employment law. So they intend to club together in order to get advice. Would be interested to hear if anyone else has gone down this road and if so what advice were they given. NI has just had the annual July fortnight when a lot of people take their annual holiday and quite a lot of people traditionally miss their payments over this period so quite a lot of agents will be heavily penalised over this period and should be in just the right frame of mind to contribute towards the legal fees.

Hi there, I do know of a friend of a friend who has a relative in the legal buisness, I believe that he is looking into it, although I have not yet learned of the outcome. Interesting thought though, if it is found to be illegal, will they refund our money? I doubt it as the fine money for compliance errors remains in their pockets, no shock here.

20yrs_agent

Stony_Broke wrote: »

Hi there, I do know of a friend of a friend who has a relative in the legal buisness, I believe that he is looking into it, although I have not yet learned of the outcome. Interesting thought though, if it is found to be illegal, will they refund our money? I doubt it as the fine money for compliance errors remains in their pockets, no shock here.

please god ,i hope someone can find out what theyre doing to us is just not justified,all my customers are saying they cant do that to you ,my reply is that they are and getting away with it since march i lost £25 LAST WK £20 THE WK BEFORE girl in my office £60 last wk its so wrong,mr peter crook.

doinadaftjob

hello everyone,

hope this isnt too long a rant!

took over a provident round 3 months ago and i didnt realise that i would be fined if customers didnt pay! did you know that the so called 'hits and misses' system doesnt apply to new agents for the first 13 weeks?
i have been learning the job and my conclusions are that provident are just as bad as the bankers who got our country in the mess we are in!

most of provvy's customers are on low income/unemployed/oap's etc and because of holidays/household bills they will go into arrears and us agents will lose out on our commission, the only way to bring them back to 'quality' is to lend them more money they cant afford! irresponsible lending in the extreme i reckon!
my area manager was saying that because of the school holidays a lot of parents will miss payments but when the new term starts they will all want loans for school uniforms and when we lend them more money we can pay their debts off!
all the DM and AM is bothered about is sales, sales, sales.
in one of my bulls$$t training interviews (which are only designed to brainwash me to arrange loans) i was being told that i am now a 'buisnessman' who is 'responsible' for the people on my collection round = having learnt the round i now know that it isnt worth knocking on a persons door who pays less than £10 or who has been refinanced because these people will cost me £15 in the hits and misses, if they dont like it they can call on them!
on my round i havent called on at least 12 houses who i know have been refinanced or only pay £5 a week (if they pay), i have not called because i want these customers to go to debt management and be taken off my book before the 13 weeks is up, i just tell the AM and DM that 'they werent in' . AM I BREAKING THE LAW? ITHINK I AM,

this provvy agent job is the worst i have ever had, i asked about my summer holidays but i was told to take them before i start! i may go on sick next month!!! because a week in spain with the wife and kids WILL NOT be cancelled!

looking for another job asap,

anonymouse.

AGENT_EXODUS

Did anyone read the report from the KPMG in the Independant recently? Here it is for those who haven't





Bosses more likely to rip off their firm, says KPMG

By Simon Read


Monday, 20 June 2011

• 
  Bosses are the biggest corporate crooks, according to a new report from KPMG. The accountancy group's research, published today, reveals that half of all UK corporate fraud is perpetrated by senior management or board members.

In addition, two-thirds of Brits who rip-off their own company are likely to have worked at the same firm for a decade or more. The research pinpoints the most likely member of staff to become a white-collar criminal: he is aged between 36 and 45 and works in accounts.
Richard Powell, forensics partner at KPMG, said: "What has remained unknown until now is the extent to which the temptation to commit fraud has infiltrated both the board and executive management in the UK.
"Often long-serving and senior employees will be better able to override controls and have accumulated a good deal of personal trust, so will be less suspected, and are most prone to committing embezzlement and procurement fraud."
The crooks are getting away with it as firms ignore red-flag warnings, such as an employee who rarely takes holidays or leads an excessive lifestyle relative to income. Bosses are the chief crooks as they are often in a position of the greatest opportunity and temptation.
They may be able to write corporate cheques to themselves or abuse their position to make excessive expense claims or gain financial advantage for themselves.
With bosses being the biggest fraudsters, it's not surprising that management reviews seldom uncover the corporate crimes, with only a fifth coming to light because of management efforts. The leading way that crimes are uncovered are whistleblower reports and anonymous tip-offs, which account for a third of detected UK frauds.
"The challenge is to peer through the ordinary disguise of the fraudster, close the gaps in the corporate armour, enhance fraud prevention and detection and respond more rapidly to red flags," Mr Powell said."




Crooks between the age of 36-45? I wonder if they are bald and have an enormous belly hang too:)

doinadaftjob

my wages over the last 3 months have averaged £245 a week gross, minus my tax at 15% and N.I contributions and then i pay £25 a week petrol there isnt much left over.

this week is my first time on the hits and misses fine system and (because a lot of customers are on holiday or days out and havent paid weekly) i have lost £85.....................not worth going to work...

thank you very much mr provvy crook.

anonymouse.

Stony_Broke

20yrs_agent wrote: »

please god ,i hope someone can find out what theyre doing to us is just not justified,all my customers are saying they cant do that to you ,my reply is that they are and getting away with it since march i lost £25 LAST WK £20 THE WK BEFORE girl in my office £60 last wk its so wrong,mr peter crook.

The little bird I know has just reported that the friend of a friends relative is taking the matter to court. Lets hope its a positive outcome that will lead the way forward for us all.

summer_boy

Self Employed agents should Google

Autoclenz Limited V Belcher - July 2011

Concerns the correct approach to written contracts in the employment context where there is a dispute as to the genuineness of a written term. The question arises in the context of a dispute as to whether individuals are “workers” within the meaning of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 and of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Twenty car valeters signed contracts describing themselves as self-employed subcontractors. They paid their own tax and had to purchase their own insurance, uniforms and materials (the latter two of which they could do from Autoclenz). Their contracts stated they were under no obligation to attend work, although the employment tribunal found as a fact – in practice – they were expected to attend work and provide services personally. The tribunal also found that they went into the contracts with their eyes open about being self-employed. Held: the tribunal had been entitled to disregard the terms included in the written agreement between the parties on the basis that the documents did not reflect what was actually agreed between the parties. In the employment context the courts must be alive to the possibility that written documentation may not accurately reflect the reality of the relationship between the parties. Employers may include terms aimed at avoiding a particular statutory result, even where such terms do not reflect the real relationship. Where one party to an employment contract seeks to challenge the genuineness of the terms there is no need to show an intention to mislead anyone; it is enough that the written term does not represent the intentions or expectations of the parties. The question in every case is what was the true agreement between the parties.

Stony_Broke

AGENT_EXODUS wrote: »

Did anyone read the report from the KPMG in the Independant recently? Here it is for those who haven't





Bosses more likely to rip off their firm, says KPMG

By Simon Read



Monday, 20 June 2011

• 
  Bosses are the biggest corporate crooks, according to a new report from KPMG. The accountancy group's research, published today, reveals that half of all UK corporate fraud is perpetrated by senior management or board members.

In addition, two-thirds of Brits who rip-off their own company are likely to have worked at the same firm for a decade or more. The research pinpoints the most likely member of staff to become a white-collar criminal: he is aged between 36 and 45 and works in accounts.
Richard Powell, forensics partner at KPMG, said: "What has remained unknown until now is the extent to which the temptation to commit fraud has infiltrated both the board and executive management in the UK.
"Often long-serving and senior employees will be better able to override controls and have accumulated a good deal of personal trust, so will be less suspected, and are most prone to committing embezzlement and procurement fraud."
The crooks are getting away with it as firms ignore red-flag warnings, such as an employee who rarely takes holidays or leads an excessive lifestyle relative to income. Bosses are the chief crooks as they are often in a position of the greatest opportunity and temptation.
They may be able to write corporate cheques to themselves or abuse their position to make excessive expense claims or gain financial advantage for themselves.
With bosses being the biggest fraudsters, it's not surprising that management reviews seldom uncover the corporate crimes, with only a fifth coming to light because of management efforts. The leading way that crimes are uncovered are whistleblower reports and anonymous tip-offs, which account for a third of detected UK frauds.
"The challenge is to peer through the ordinary disguise of the fraudster, close the gaps in the corporate armour, enhance fraud prevention and detection and respond more rapidly to red flags," Mr Powell said."




Crooks between the age of 36-45? I wonder if they are bald and have an enormous belly hang too:)

And they have the cheek to have security spy on us, perhaps they should try looking closer to home. POWER CORRUPTS. By the way, great post, very informative.

fran_tick

This is good news and all self employed agents need to look into this and get some legal advice

summer_boy wrote: »

Self Employed agents should Google

Autoclenz Limited V Belcher - July 2011

Concerns the correct approach to written contracts in the employment context where there is a dispute as to the genuineness of a written term. The question arises in the context of a dispute as to whether individuals are “workers” within the meaning of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 and of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Twenty car valeters signed contracts describing themselves as self-employed subcontractors. They paid their own tax and had to purchase their own insurance, uniforms and materials (the latter two of which they could do from Autoclenz). Their contracts stated they were under no obligation to attend work, although the employment tribunal found as a fact – in practice – they were expected to attend work and provide services personally. The tribunal also found that they went into the contracts with their eyes open about being self-employed. Held: the tribunal had been entitled to disregard the terms included in the written agreement between the parties on the basis that the documents did not reflect what was actually agreed between the parties. In the employment context the courts must be alive to the possibility that written documentation may not accurately reflect the reality of the relationship between the parties. Employers may include terms aimed at avoiding a particular statutory result, even where such terms do not reflect the real relationship. Where one party to an employment contract seeks to challenge the genuineness of the terms there is no need to show an intention to mislead anyone; it is enough that the written term does not represent the intentions or expectations of the parties. The question in every case is what was the true agreement between the parties.