The problem with “better umbrellas”
The dominant response to JSL in the recruitment industry is to invest in compliance monitoring — tools like SafeRec, tighter PSLs, accreditation checks. These are sensible steps. But they don't change the fundamental risk: you are still relying on a third party to pay HMRC correctly, and if they don't, the bill is yours.
Due diligence reduces the probability of a problem. It does not reduce the liability when a problem occurs. Under Chapter 11 ITEPA[2], there is no statutory defence for the agency. The question HMRC asks is simply: was the tax paid? If the answer is no, the debt notice arrives at your door.
HMRC analysis shows that at least 275,000 of the 700,000 umbrella workers were engaged by non-compliant companies, and that £500 million was lost to disguised remuneration tax avoidance in a single year — almost all of it facilitated by umbrella companies.[4] The scale of enforcement is going to be substantial.
There is also a reputational dimension that due diligence cannot address. If an umbrella in your supply chain is found to be non-compliant, headlines do not distinguish between “bad umbrella” and “agency that used them.” For agencies working in the public sector, regulated industries, or any environment where supply chain compliance is under scrutiny, the association alone can damage client relationships — regardless of whether you end up liable for the tax.