I've been reading up on the forthcoming workplace pensions and my boss has paid for me to attend a Sage seminar however they rang up and cancelled and said they would contact me for someone to come out to my workplace and do a one to one seminar with me well knowing sage I can imagine this won't happen. Can you imagine the costs if they did this for everyone?
As you can imagine I'm now in a panic and I'm still yet to write letters to our payroll clients with information. Could anyone give me some advice on where to start?
Thanks Pauline! I agree I think so too! I rang sage yesterday after they had sent us a letter demanding payment for this 'seminar'. I argued that we hadn't even been given a date that someone was coming out and also told them that I couldn't quite believe that it would actually happen. They said it will but in the evnt that it doesn't they will issue us with a credit note. If it wasn't sage I would find this very dodgy. Never known this to happen before.
I'm going to sell loads of deferred services for real money, not actually turn up and then issue credit notes which are a liability but no real movement of cash.
Banks don't pay until after the service has been provided. Why should anyone else accept different?
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I know haha yes very sure :O which makes it even more shocking. Sgage's credit control department rang this morning demanding payment for the cancelled seminar invoice. I told them we have requested a credit note for this and a new invoice to be issued with the date and time of the one to one seminar on otherwise we refuse to pay. She sounded very apologetic. Really naughty of them. And unpofessional!
Auto Enrolment is indeed far, far worse than RTI. The people who drafted the rules were either insane, or deeply incompetent, or they were promoting an active desire to damage the economy by imposing a set of rules that no normal employer will be able to understand. It could have been done so easily, and fitted into existing structures rather than drafting regulations that take no notice of long-established payroll admin practice.
Apparently the response (to the realisation that the rules are complex beyond all reason) is that a new optional simplified scheme will be introduced. Officials think that optional simplified schemes simplify things when they don't. Having another optional scheme increases complexity rather than reducing it since payroll administrators and software developers will now need to learn 2 different ways of working (VAT is a classic example of this wrong-headed thinking). My betting is that the simplified scheme will still be *far* too complex.
-- Edited by Tom McClelland on Thursday 12th of September 2013 08:52:23 AM
I was about to start a new thread about 'Nominate a Contact' as per the Pension Regulator site. If anyone blithly supposes Auto Enrolment will just be a bit of extra admin. we can charge for - this thread is worth bumping and put me off a little from assuming any more responsibility.
Payroll and HR cross-over somewhat and it's me who is alerting client's to their staging date and a giving an outline of % deductions and responsibilities. I'm bound to be asked to be the 'Nominated Contact' by one or more clients.
I have in the past had unfounded fears of various changes and I'd inevitably have to give Auto-Enrolment a thoroughly bad press as reasons for refusal.
Would anyone like to share their response to client requests to being a Nominated Contact ?
well knowing sage I can imagine this won't happen. Can you imagine the costs if they did this for everyone?
from assuming any more responsibility.
