provident agents [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

19england66

i thought deputies do not get the charges......

ANDREW_EX_AGENT

Leave while you can. All the forums in the world wont help you now. I think all you can do has been done. Its time to put up or shut up.......................Just found this dated last week.

Provident Financial, the UK's largest lender of non-standard loans, continues to find sources of profit growth in 2011, despite a backdrop of falling real incomes and new financial regulation as its Vanquis bank took up the slack from a largely moribund consumer credit division.
The sub-prime lender is having to apply very tight credit standards as personal incomes are squeezed. Profits from the consumer credit division were marginally lower at £50.2m, compared with £51.1m at this stage last year, although the company also had to implement new financial regulations at a cost of £2m. Net customer numbers were largely unchanged at 1.8m.

stormchild

ANDREW_EX_AGENT wrote: »

Leave while you can. All the forums in the world wont help you now. I think all you can do has been done. Its time to put up or shut up.......................Just found this dated last week.

Provident Financial, the UK's largest lender of non-standard loans, continues to find sources of profit growth in 2011, despite a backdrop of falling real incomes and new financial regulation as its Vanquis bank took up the slack from a largely moribund consumer credit division.
The sub-prime lender is having to apply very tight credit standards as personal incomes are squeezed. Profits from the consumer credit division were marginally lower at £50.2m, compared with £51.1m at this stage last year, although the company also had to implement new financial regulations at a cost of £2m. Net customer numbers were largely unchanged at 1.8m.

If the customer numbers are unchanged then maybe its only the scottish division thats losing customers, 19000 so far this year, bad debt charge going through the roof. DM's making frantic pleading phone calls, please pay,please take a loan. They deserve what they get. Possibly being lined up for a takeover? Split provident and keep vanquis bank as thats where peter the crooks background is(barclaycard). lets hope he makes a better job of this as he f----d them right over.

demoralised

Found this on the net it's a reply from lawyer in responce to someone querying the legality of POT fines. " However, the ERA ss13-27 allows for wage deductions from staff in respect of cash and stock shortages and that's what Provident are relying on. It's not clear cut by any means (does a missed payment count as a cash shortage? Does the employee get reimbursed if the borrower meets the repayment schedule?) but it's grey enough for this odious company to go through the time honoured process of insuring themselves against loss through the earnings of their employees.

.
I don't know how much detail you want but the law requires that the right to make these deductions is incorporated in the terms and conditions (one line saying that they're going to do this is enough) and that, in the retail sector, deductions other than from final salary may not exceed 10% of salary in any one period.

The very brief history, for all of you lovely people out there who voted Conservative, is that the House of Lords held in 1986 that a provision in the Truck Acts from 1896 prevented employers from making these types of deductions and ruled in favour of a petrol station employee who had lost 90% of his salary to people who drove away without paying. So the Conservatives introduced the Wages Act 1986 which restored the right. I did a comparative study in this with other jurisdictions and there isn't one civilised country which allows this the way the UK does. Ireland comes close but requires the employer to make the deductions where these are 'reasonable in all the circumstances', a requirement not imposed on UK employers.

It's a disgraceful law which shames the UK and it's only used by the most disreputable of employers. If what you are saying is true, then Provident should be ashamed of themselves." Not sure if this law also applies to self employed but if you are losing more than 10% of your commision it may be worth quoting the 1986 Wages Act in your defence,may be enough to rattle HQ.

20yrs_agent

demoralised wrote: »

Found this on the net it's a reply from lawyer in responce to someone querying the legality of POT fines. " However, the ERA ss13-27 allows for wage deductions from staff in respect of cash and stock shortages and that's what Provident are relying on. It's not clear cut by any means (does a missed payment count as a cash shortage? Does the employee get reimbursed if the borrower meets the repayment schedule?) but it's grey enough for this odious company to go through the time honoured process of insuring themselves against loss through the earnings of their employees.

.
I don't know how much detail you want but the law requires that the right to make these deductions is incorporated in the terms and conditions (one line saying that they're going to do this is enough) and that, in the retail sector, deductions other than from final salary may not exceed 10% of salary in any one period.

The very brief history, for all of you lovely people out there who voted Conservative, is that the House of Lords held in 1986 that a provision in the Truck Acts from 1896 prevented employers from making these types of deductions and ruled in favour of a petrol station employee who had lost 90% of his salary to people who drove away without paying. So the Conservatives introduced the Wages Act 1986 which restored the right. I did a comparative study in this with other jurisdictions and there isn't one civilised country which allows this the way the UK does. Ireland comes close but requires the employer to make the deductions where these are 'reasonable in all the circumstances', a requirement not imposed on UK employers.

It's a disgraceful law which shames the UK and it's only used by the most disreputable of employers. If what you are saying is true, then Provident should be ashamed of themselves." Not sure if this law also applies to self employed but if you are losing more than 10% of your commision it may be worth quoting the 1986 Wages Act in your defence,may be enough to rattle HQ.

sounds interesting i earned £254 had deductions 0f £45 ,25 last wk 20 the wk before and it will be 30 this wk £120 in 4 wks the robbing thieving ba

---

s grrrrrrrrrrrr

Im_Orpheus

Hi Guy's, Im new to the site so stay with me on this one. Loved reading all of the posts on this forum especially Stoney's!
I have a curve ball for you to follow;
It appears that the company's 'Agent agreement' stating your employment status as 'self employed' is the river you may need to cross if you want these deductions stopped and your money back. In this country there are three main types of employment...
Employee, Worker and Self Employed.
In employment law working out your employment status is crucial to ascertain your true employment status.
On the governments own web site there is a section under ‘Understanding your employment status’ that states “if you are self-employed for tax purposes it will not prevent an Employment Tribunal from finding that you are an 'employee' or a 'worker' for employment law purposes.”
The reason for the company not wishing it’s agents to be classed as anything but self employed within it’s ‘Agents Agreement’ is because of the legal rights given to a ‘worker’ under the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, a section within the government website headed ‘Working out your employment status’ under the sub-section ‘Personal service consultants’ it is clear that you should be classed as a ‘worker’ and be entitled to the protection and legal rights it offers against pay deductions.
On the Inland Revenue web site is a page under the same heading with a questionnaire based on past case history's and tribunal hearings called the ESI tool. It is used to work out your true employment status. Unfortunately it was experiencing technical problems when I tried it.
Hope this is of interest to you,
Good Luck!

Im_Orpheus

There is one other little anomaly within the applecart for you.. If as they say, you are self-employed, then you are running your own business. And if you are then it is up to you to run it as you see fit. In other words, if the customer doesn't pay and as a result, you lose out not only on a commission, but you are being penalised for the customers non-payment, then it is only fair that you should be able to recover that loss from the customer... Ok so far??? ... Well, under new rules that came into effect this year, the TOTAL charge for credit TCC, shall expressly show ALL costs to the customer including all costs including commissions to agents etc. Ok????.. Well if there is a charge recovery from you the agent, then the true cost to the customer will have been affected and will NOT be taken into account by the company when setting up the agreement. .. Sorry if that all seems a bit gobbledegook, but that's law. .. In other words, the company cannot remove money from you as a punitive measure for non-collection on a delinquent account as it will breach the new rules that came into effect in February this year. Consumer credit directive 2010 ( in force Feb 2011) says ......

5.3 The TCC is defined in regulation 2 as encompassing all costs known to the creditor and which are required to be paid by or on behalf of the borrower (or a relative) in connection with the credit agreement. These include interest, commissions, taxes and any other kind of fees, whether payable to the creditor or to a third party, with the exception of notarial fees.

The relevant wording being, or to a third party, ( that's you, the agent).

Joshua_W

Im_Orpheus wrote: »

There is one other little anomaly within the applecart for you.. If as they say, you are self-employed, then you are running your own business. And if you are then it is up to you to run it as you see fit. In other words, if the customer doesn't pay and as a result, you lose out not only on a commission, but you are being penalised for the customers non-payment, then it is only fair that you should be able to recover that loss from the customer... Ok so far??? ... Well, under new rules that came into effect this year, the TOTAL charge for credit TCC, shall expressly show ALL costs to the customer including all costs including commissions to agents etc. Ok????.. Well if there is a charge recovery from you the agent, then the true cost to the customer will have been affected and will NOT be taken into account by the company when setting up the agreement. .. Sorry if that all seems a bit gobbledegook, but that's law. .. In other words, the company cannot remove money from you as a punitive measure for non-collection on a delinquent account as it will breach the new rules that came into effect in February this year. Consumer credit directive 2010 ( in force Feb 2011) says ......

5.3 The TCC is defined in regulation 2 as encompassing all costs known to the creditor and which are required to be paid by or on behalf of the borrower (or a relative) in connection with the credit agreement. These include interest, commissions, taxes and any other kind of fees, whether payable to the creditor or to a third party, with the exception of notarial fees.

The relevant wording being, or to a third party, ( that's you, the agent).

Hmm, the Banks have set aside millions of £'s to repay PPI, it took many years but justice was done in the end.

So many Agents have been deducted £100's of £'s over the past few months, in years to come it may well have to be re-paid.

Nice thought.

demoralised

Thank you Im Orpheus very interesting slowly the peices of the jigsaw are coming together, I was unaware that you could be classed as self employed for tax purposes but as a worker for employment rights,below is what is needed to obtain worker status.
Employment Tribunal decisions on your employment status

Ultimately only a court or Employment Tribunal can make a final decision on your employment status. They will base their decision on a number of different factors, which are in line with legal tests developed through case law.
An Employment Tribunal will look at how an employment relationship works in practice to determine your employment status. They will look at whether:

• you have to take on the work personally, rather than sending a substitute or sub-contracting the work
• your work provider has a significant degree of control, or right of control, over you
• you are paid a regular salary
• your employer or work provider deducts tax and National Insurance (rather than you being responsible for making these payments)
• you receive holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay etc
• you work at your employer's premises and use your employer's tools and/or facilities
• you are integrated into the business (for example, if you appear in the company organisational chart, are subject to the company's disciplinary and grievance procedures)
• you have any financial risk or reward, for example bonuses depending on how quickly or well the work is performed
• you work exclusively for one business rather than performing work for a number of 'customers'
• you have an employment contract or any other contractual documentation, eg a letter of appointment, which describes you as an employee (also know as a statement of mutual intention)

Normally if you are self-employed for tax purposes, you will be self-employed in relation to your employment rights. However, if you are self-employed for tax purposes it will not prevent an Employment Tribunal from finding that you are an 'employee' or a 'worker' for employment law purposes. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) decisions are not binding on Employment Tribunals.

---

We definately qualify for 5 out of the 10 which must make this line worth trying, it would limit any deductions provident were allowed to make plus throw in some extras such as holiday pay, sickpay,maternity pay, employment rights etc. without compromising our self employed status for tax purposes.This seems like our best shot at getting this finally sorted and preventing some agents from losing large portions of their hard earned commision.Perhaps some ex agents who left due to loses could engage the services of a no win no pay solicitor and test this at a tribunal hearing.

summer_boy

I'm Orpheus read post 1093 and then give your opinion