View more on these topics

Steve Bee launches 50p a day auto-enrol compliance product

JargonFreeBenefits has developed a new product which director Steve Bee claims solves the automatic enrolment compliance conundrum facing small and micro-employers.

Bee (pictured) says the new product, JargonFree Pensions Compliance, will allow payroll providers and accountants to provide an auto-enrolment compliance service for companies with between 1 and 50 employees.

He says the system can accommodate weekly, monthly or fortnightly payroll cycles or a combination of these.

The factory-gate charge for using the product will be 50p a day per firm and is available through Paradigm’s licensee firms. These firms can distribute it through a sub-license to payroll providers and accountancy practices.

Bee says: “The big job with pensions compliance is to get it to the really small businesses like chip shops and corner shops.

“We have built a new product which will provide full pension compliance for small firms and, crucially, micro- employers.”

Keyte Ltd director Robin Keyte says: “I expect payroll providers to cope with auto-enrolment without having to incur the cost of using this system.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 9 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. great publicity. wait and see on the product as it appeals to the 2015 market. lots of water under the bridge between now and then. Sadly i think it may be too early

  2. “Keyte Ltd director Robin Keyte says: “I expect payroll providers to cope with auto-enrolment without having to incur the cost of using this system.”

    So payroll providers will do all the record keeping, all the assessments, all the communications for their small clients for free? Not very likely, especially as 53% of surveyed payroll providers :…”admit to not understanding their software capabilities in respect of auto-enrolment, which supports employers’ anecdotal evidence that payroll providers have been slow to reveal their service offerings.”

  3. Great idea Steve, oh wait a moment, two big pension providers offer it for free. mmmm not such a great idea Steve….

  4. There’s that word ‘free’ again …. define ‘free’?

  5. “Free” – You cant work out exacxtly how its costing you money…

  6. This system is agnostic. Unlike the systems provided for “free” from the big pension providers. What if you wanted to change provider in future? What if the company has more than one pension scheme?

    It would be very short sighted to use a bundled system.

  7. Anonymous 12:51 – have product providers ever given anything away for free? If they can’t charge for it explicitly then it either has no value or they need to entice you to use the product they will be charging for as it doesn’t stack up on its own.

  8. “Great idea Steve, oh wait a moment, two big pension providers offer it for free. mmmm not such a great idea Steve….”

    Anonymous – a micro-employer has fewer than 10 employees. Name one big product provider that would offer them a GPP let alone free compliance software. Of the 1.3 million employers affected by auto-enrolment 968,545 are micro employers. (Coffee, wake-up, smell etc…)

  9. I was looking at a brochure by Mercer that was based around the proposition that AE is yet another business opportunity. Think about that carefully.
    We apparently have a major problem facing the country in the years to come, namely being able to ensure that those in retirement are not destitute. There has apparently been a fall in pension provision in recent years, and this needs to be arrested by ensuing that those a the bottom end of the ladder are , more or less, forced to contribute to a much maligned pension system.
    Who are the people who have maligned the pension system? Mainly politicians, the media and the industry itself. Given that line-up does it surprise anyone that people are unwilling to present the pension industry with their hard earned cash?
    But now we have another “business opportunity” – not a solution to a social problem.
    And Mr Bee, who has been to the forefront of haranguing politicians on the flaws in the current State Benefit System (much of it absolutely spot-on) has seen his own business opportunity in “small and micro” firms.
    The statistics show that the vast majority of firms in the UK have less than 10 people, so the marketing opportunity is vast. AE is really targeted at the lower paid element – it’s another way of increasing National Insurance without uttering those words, and without the problem of having to guarantee anything at the end of the day.
    So, to address this problem we are presented with a compliance system that costs 50p per day, or 31% of the contribution of a person entering the system; 23% of someone on a £10,000 salary. Certainly the cost will be spread if there are more people, but I still surmise this average compliance cost could be around 4% of contribution. On top of which are the investment costs. And I haven’t factored in any inflation proofing costs or personnel costs for using the system. People have been screaming at 1.75%, and now we have the cheap version – about 5.5%!
    This is just one example of the “business opportunity” that AE provides. It doesn’t actually add anything to what already existed, other than semi-compulsion and a massive level of administration and legislation. The FSA and TPR are absolutely slathering at the mouth at the juicy regulatory reams they will be able to role out over the next few years. Will it add anything other than more cost? I doubt it.
    I do not doubt the bona fides of Mr Bee. I just doubt the sanity and ethics of an industry that really does consider pension provision for people as a major “business opportunity”.
    National Insurance is collected fairly cost effectively, including from the Self Employed, who are excluded from AE. The State Pension is paid out fairly cost effectively to people over 65. The only problem was that the Government spent the “pension fund” as soon as they got their hands on it, and then blamed everyone else for the resulting problem. That was the only problem that needed solving. It was obviously too difficult for politicians and did not make enough money for the pension industry.
    So we end up with systems that could cost up to 31% of contributions, excluding investment costs.
    Wow, we really must be pleased with ourselves being able to delude the public so successfully. Well, of course, we do need a good pension scheme.

Leave a comment