Complaint Review: VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited - Lindsay Ontario

I used to be a salesman for VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. Some of the things mentioned on ripoffreport.com also gave me pause when I worked there. Canada's CCRA (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) audited the company while I worked there. As a result of the information found, the CCRA auditor called for an investigation into the agreement between myself and VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. CCRA suspected that the agreement, which designated me as a contractor, for whom the employer was not obliged to pay income taxes, Employment Insurance premiums or Canada Pension Plan contributions, and, of course, no benefits, was a way to conceal what was essentially an employer/employee relationship. This means that the payments made from employer to employee, designated as draw (draw is a repayable advance or loan against future commissions from sales), was in effect salary, pensionable and insurable, meaning that VectorSoft should have deducted income taxes, as well as EI and CPP, all of which should have been sent by the employer to the Canadian government, on my behalf. I was contacted by a very thorough and able investigator, working for CCRA's Peterborough office. She contacted both Mr. Michael G. Hughes, the owner of the US front company, the Canadian VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited and Vector Logistics Inc. to request the required documentation to make her ruling. Mr. Hughes told me that he had one Achilles heel in these proceedings. This problem for him was the last page of our nine page agreement. The last page was an amendment to the contract, signed on the same day as the contract, which expressly prohibited me from working for anyone else while providing full-time services to VectorSoft. Canadian law says that when a worker is prohibited from working for anyone else, then the relationship between the parties is not one of contractor and buyer but employer and employee. Contracts of the like between myself and VectorSoft, are deemed to exist for the primary purpose of allowing the employer to avoid paying the normal contributions towards EI and CPP as well as benefits packages that are in effect for other employees of the firm. When the investigator contacted me, she determined without seeing page 9 of 9 of the contract, that my relationship with VectorSoft was that of employer and employee and that my payments were not draw but salary and were thus insurable and pensionable. Michael G. Hughes told me that he was definitely going to appeal the ruling. I spoke subsequently to CCRA to determine the status of it and whether or not there had been an appeal. There was no appeal. That's also when I found out that page 9 of 9 of the contract had not been given to the CCRA investigator, when she asked for a copy of the contract, when she was at VectorSoft's basement office in Lindsay, ON. Only pages 1 through 8 were given to her there, omitting the Achilles heel. I was terminated after the CCRA ruling and just before payday, with an unpaid notice period for a total of 18 days' missing pay. Despite the uncontested CCRA ruling that made me an employee, I was also not given a Record of Employment (ROE), which is a legal requirement. Without an ROE, a terminated employee cannot apply for EI (Employment Insurance). I filed for EI without it and had to wait extra long because I had to request the government's assistance in obtaining an ROE from VectorSoft. VectorSoft was forced by the government to provide the ROE. At that time, they were also forced to pay the EI and CPP contributions for my time there. But I was still out my pay for the last 18 days of my time working for VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. I was forced to ask the Ontario Ministry of Labour to assist me. I made a claim. It takes 60 days before such claims are assigned to an available officer. The officer was prompt and thorough. I had turned over pay-stubs and all available information, including the CCRA ruling to her. She informed VectorSoft of my claim by registered mail and gave them a generous deadline by which they could respond with their information, so that she could make a ruling based on information provided by both sides. VectorSoft missed that deadline. So, the officer made her judgement based on information I provided. She sent that judgement to VectorSoft by registered mail. She gave them a new deadline by which to appeal her ruling. They missed that deadline as well. The Ministry of Labour officer was meticulous in documenting everything she did, including keeping records of the signatures obtained by Canada Post from delivering her mail to VectorSoft. VectorSoft missed the deadline for appeal. Next, she issued an Order to Pay. The order to Pay can ALSO be appealed. This time, however, in order to appeal an Order to Pay, at that stage of the matter, an appeal would have to be accompanied by the payment in full of what was owed to me, plus a modest administration fee for the Ontario Ministry of Labour. Then, the Labour Relations Board would have to decide, while the money was held in trust and released to the successful party. There was neither an appeal nor any payment for three months. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labour hired a collection agency to collect payment from VectorSoft. Finally, after three months, VectorSoft paid the collection agency and then filed a rather late appeal or request for review. This went to the Labour Relations Board, along with a reason as to why it was SO LATE. Michael G. Hughes stated in his request for review, that the reason why he was so late in filing, was that he was travelling in Europe. The Board copied me on their decision in this regard. The reason for the delay was deemed not persuasive to wait that long. Mr. Hughes was given ten more days to come up with two further explanations: (1.) Why could nobody else in the company have handled this while he was away?, and (2.) He might have been in Europe for a month, but what about the other two months of not doing anything? In fact, the Board stated that they would likely have allowed a month's delay. Michael G. Hughes submitted his explanation. He stated that funds had to be obtained to pay for the review, since payment had to accompany a request for review. In other words, for three months, he did not have the funds to pay for my 18 days of Draw plus vacation pay + the 10% fee the government needed to handle this case. I found this out from the final decision, which dismissed his request for review of my case. Now I have to wait between 2 and 8 weeks more to get my last pay, for a potential total of up to 8 months. Still, justice was served in the case and at every step along the way, both with the Federal and Provincial governments, I dealt with thorough, competent and fair people, who gave plenty of opportunities for Mr. Hughes to make his case, which, in the end, he failed to do in each instance.

I used to be a salesman for VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. Some of the things mentioned on ripoffreport.com also gave me pause when I worked there. Canada's CCRA (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) audited the company while I worked there. As a result of the information found, the CCRA auditor called for an investigation into the agreement between myself and VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. CCRA suspected that the agreement, which designated me as a contractor, for whom the employer was not obliged to pay income taxes, Employment Insurance premiums or Canada Pension Plan contributions, and, of course, no benefits, was a way to conceal what was essentially an employer/employee relationship. This means that the payments made from employer to employee, designated as draw (draw is a repayable advance or loan against future commissions from sales), was in effect salary, pensionable and insurable, meaning that VectorSoft should have deducted income taxes, as well as EI and CPP, all of which should have been sent by the employer to the Canadian government, on my behalf. I was contacted by a very thorough and able investigator, working for CCRA's Peterborough office. She contacted both Mr. Michael G. Hughes, the owner of the US front company, the Canadian VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited and Vector Logistics Inc. to request the required documentation to make her ruling. Mr. Hughes told me that he had one Achilles heel in these proceedings. This problem for him was the last page of our nine page agreement. The last page was an amendment to the contract, signed on the same day as the contract, which expressly prohibited me from working for anyone else while providing full-time services to VectorSoft. Canadian law says that when a worker is prohibited from working for anyone else, then the relationship between the parties is not one of contractor and buyer but employer and employee. Contracts of the like between myself and VectorSoft, are deemed to exist for the primary purpose of allowing the employer to avoid paying the normal contributions towards EI and CPP as well as benefits packages that are in effect for other employees of the firm. When the investigator contacted me, she determined without seeing page 9 of 9 of the contract, that my relationship with VectorSoft was that of employer and employee and that my payments were not draw but salary and were thus insurable and pensionable. Michael G. Hughes told me that he was definitely going to appeal the ruling. I spoke subsequently to CCRA to determine the status of it and whether or not there had been an appeal. There was no appeal. That's also when I found out that page 9 of 9 of the contract had not been given to the CCRA investigator, when she asked for a copy of the contract, when she was at VectorSoft's basement office in Lindsay, ON. Only pages 1 through 8 were given to her there, omitting the Achilles heel. I was terminated after the CCRA ruling and just before payday, with an unpaid notice period for a total of 18 days' missing pay. Despite the uncontested CCRA ruling that made me an employee, I was also not given a Record of Employment (ROE), which is a legal requirement. Without an ROE, a terminated employee cannot apply for EI (Employment Insurance). I filed for EI without it and had to wait extra long because I had to request the government's assistance in obtaining an ROE from VectorSoft. VectorSoft was forced by the government to provide the ROE. At that time, they were also forced to pay the EI and CPP contributions for my time there. But I was still out my pay for the last 18 days of my time working for VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. I was forced to ask the Ontario Ministry of Labour to assist me. I made a claim. It takes 60 days before such claims are assigned to an available officer. The officer was prompt and thorough. I had turned over pay-stubs and all available information, including the CCRA ruling to her. She informed VectorSoft of my claim by registered mail and gave them a generous deadline by which they could respond with their information, so that she could make a ruling based on information provided by both sides. VectorSoft missed that deadline. So, the officer made her judgement based on information I provided. She sent that judgement to VectorSoft by registered mail. She gave them a new deadline by which to appeal her ruling. They missed that deadline as well. The Ministry of Labour officer was meticulous in documenting everything she did, including keeping records of the signatures obtained by Canada Post from delivering her mail to VectorSoft. VectorSoft missed the deadline for appeal. Next, she issued an Order to Pay. The order to Pay can ALSO be appealed. This time, however, in order to appeal an Order to Pay, at that stage of the matter, an appeal would have to be accompanied by the payment in full of what was owed to me, plus a modest administration fee for the Ontario Ministry of Labour. Then, the Labour Relations Board would have to decide, while the money was held in trust and released to the successful party. There was neither an appeal nor any payment for three months. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labour hired a collection agency to collect payment from VectorSoft. Finally, after three months, VectorSoft paid the collection agency and then filed a rather late appeal or request for review. This went to the Labour Relations Board, along with a reason as to why it was SO LATE. Michael G. Hughes stated in his request for review, that the reason why he was so late in filing, was that he was travelling in Europe. The Board copied me on their decision in this regard. The reason for the delay was deemed not persuasive to wait that long. Mr. Hughes was given ten more days to come up with two further explanations: (1.) Why could nobody else in the company have handled this while he was away?, and (2.) He might have been in Europe for a month, but what about the other two months of not doing anything? In fact, the Board stated that they would likely have allowed a month's delay. Michael G. Hughes submitted his explanation. He stated that funds had to be obtained to pay for the review, since payment had to accompany a request for review. In other words, for three months, he did not have the funds to pay for my 18 days of Draw plus vacation pay + the 10% fee the government needed to handle this case. I found this out from the final decision, which dismissed his request for review of my case. Now I have to wait between 2 and 8 weeks more to get my last pay, for a potential total of up to 8 months. Still, justice was served in the case and at every step along the way, both with the Federal and Provincial governments, I dealt with thorough, competent and fair people, who gave plenty of opportunities for Mr. Hughes to make his case, which, in the end, he failed to do in each instance.

I used to be a salesman for VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. Some of the things mentioned on ripoffreport.com also gave me pause when I worked there. Canada's CCRA (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) audited the company while I worked there. As a result of the information found, the CCRA auditor called for an investigation into the agreement between myself and VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. CCRA suspected that the agreement, which designated me as a contractor, for whom the employer was not obliged to pay income taxes, Employment Insurance premiums or Canada Pension Plan contributions, and, of course, no benefits, was a way to conceal what was essentially an employer/employee relationship. This means that the payments made from employer to employee, designated as draw (draw is a repayable advance or loan against future commissions from sales), was in effect salary, pensionable and insurable, meaning that VectorSoft should have deducted income taxes, as well as EI and CPP, all of which should have been sent by the employer to the Canadian government, on my behalf. I was contacted by a very thorough and able investigator, working for CCRA's Peterborough office. She contacted both Mr. Michael G. Hughes, the owner of the US front company, the Canadian VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited and Vector Logistics Inc. to request the required documentation to make her ruling. Mr. Hughes told me that he had one Achilles heel in these proceedings. This problem for him was the last page of our nine page agreement. The last page was an amendment to the contract, signed on the same day as the contract, which expressly prohibited me from working for anyone else while providing full-time services to VectorSoft. Canadian law says that when a worker is prohibited from working for anyone else, then the relationship between the parties is not one of contractor and buyer but employer and employee. Contracts of the like between myself and VectorSoft, are deemed to exist for the primary purpose of allowing the employer to avoid paying the normal contributions towards EI and CPP as well as benefits packages that are in effect for other employees of the firm. When the investigator contacted me, she determined without seeing page 9 of 9 of the contract, that my relationship with VectorSoft was that of employer and employee and that my payments were not draw but salary and were thus insurable and pensionable. Michael G. Hughes told me that he was definitely going to appeal the ruling. I spoke subsequently to CCRA to determine the status of it and whether or not there had been an appeal. There was no appeal. That's also when I found out that page 9 of 9 of the contract had not been given to the CCRA investigator, when she asked for a copy of the contract, when she was at VectorSoft's basement office in Lindsay, ON. Only pages 1 through 8 were given to her there, omitting the Achilles heel. I was terminated after the CCRA ruling and just before payday, with an unpaid notice period for a total of 18 days' missing pay. Despite the uncontested CCRA ruling that made me an employee, I was also not given a Record of Employment (ROE), which is a legal requirement. Without an ROE, a terminated employee cannot apply for EI (Employment Insurance). I filed for EI without it and had to wait extra long because I had to request the government's assistance in obtaining an ROE from VectorSoft. VectorSoft was forced by the government to provide the ROE. At that time, they were also forced to pay the EI and CPP contributions for my time there. But I was still out my pay for the last 18 days of my time working for VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. I was forced to ask the Ontario Ministry of Labour to assist me. I made a claim. It takes 60 days before such claims are assigned to an available officer. The officer was prompt and thorough. I had turned over pay-stubs and all available information, including the CCRA ruling to her. She informed VectorSoft of my claim by registered mail and gave them a generous deadline by which they could respond with their information, so that she could make a ruling based on information provided by both sides. VectorSoft missed that deadline. So, the officer made her judgement based on information I provided. She sent that judgement to VectorSoft by registered mail. She gave them a new deadline by which to appeal her ruling. They missed that deadline as well. The Ministry of Labour officer was meticulous in documenting everything she did, including keeping records of the signatures obtained by Canada Post from delivering her mail to VectorSoft. VectorSoft missed the deadline for appeal. Next, she issued an Order to Pay. The order to Pay can ALSO be appealed. This time, however, in order to appeal an Order to Pay, at that stage of the matter, an appeal would have to be accompanied by the payment in full of what was owed to me, plus a modest administration fee for the Ontario Ministry of Labour. Then, the Labour Relations Board would have to decide, while the money was held in trust and released to the successful party. There was neither an appeal nor any payment for three months. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labour hired a collection agency to collect payment from VectorSoft. Finally, after three months, VectorSoft paid the collection agency and then filed a rather late appeal or request for review. This went to the Labour Relations Board, along with a reason as to why it was SO LATE. Michael G. Hughes stated in his request for review, that the reason why he was so late in filing, was that he was travelling in Europe. The Board copied me on their decision in this regard. The reason for the delay was deemed not persuasive to wait that long. Mr. Hughes was given ten more days to come up with two further explanations: (1.) Why could nobody else in the company have handled this while he was away?, and (2.) He might have been in Europe for a month, but what about the other two months of not doing anything? In fact, the Board stated that they would likely have allowed a month's delay. Michael G. Hughes submitted his explanation. He stated that funds had to be obtained to pay for the review, since payment had to accompany a request for review. In other words, for three months, he did not have the funds to pay for my 18 days of Draw plus vacation pay + the 10% fee the government needed to handle this case. I found this out from the final decision, which dismissed his request for review of my case. Now I have to wait between 2 and 8 weeks more to get my last pay, for a potential total of up to 8 months. Still, justice was served in the case and at every step along the way, both with the Federal and Provincial governments, I dealt with thorough, competent and fair people, who gave plenty of opportunities for Mr. Hughes to make his case, which, in the end, he failed to do in each instance.

I have noted the recent complaints of cheating customers - Germany, US everywhere. Here is some more information. This Vectorsoft limited company is using illegal means to acquire large customers. They are bribing senior or retired people in large manufacturing companies, power plant companies, construction companies to fetch them large conversion work. They are quoting pricings at pennies to these large customers. And outsourcing the jobs to India. In India, they are getting the work done at very low price, like $2-4 per hour rate. The employers in India are in return exploiting their draftsman by asking them to sit for hours at stretch. Both parties are using illegal/pirated softwares to save money. One will find more on further enquiry. I was working as an employee to one of their indian vendors - "SAR SOFTECH" www.sarsoftech.com in N. Delhi and had been treated inhumanly after this customer visited india with work. It is an attack on our livelihood. I did the CAD conversion of that German client' drawings, I do not know German language. I did whatever was visible in the paper drawing. Once their COO, Mr. Darrel Mitchel (a fat person with beards) visited india to see the facilities here in N. Delhi. Outsourcing to India is appropriate if done through a fair practise and not by cheating. They are cheating everyone.

There are so far two reports on Rip-Off Reports about michael Hughes and VectorSoft Conversion Services Limited. From personal experience, I can say that both are accurate. The company had a deal with Inca Software in India, who did the conversions for them. They were not happy with the third world conversions, particularly the text. When it came to non-English conversions especially, nobody in the Lindsay, Ontario, office (There IS NO US Office, just a front in Chicago that costs a few hundred bucks per month to make it look like they're in the US, which they're definitely NOT.) Then there were disputes between VectorSoft and the Indian company. So, for a while, they appeared like Vector Logistics, taking the original VectorSoft website offline. With the dispute settled, they sent a fellow to India to find other conversion services - cheap! Cheap is what that place is all about. He came back supposedly with seven highly qualified firms, who now do the conversions for them. When asked if VectorSoft actually OWN their own software for the conversions, the answer was: "Soon.", meaning that they never did own it, or at least not under the Hughes ownership. They have no engineers in their employ, no cartographers, no architects, nobody who can actually stamp a drawing or a map and be recognized. They have to hire that out. So, if you give your drawings to VectorSoft, it will first travel to one of the many vendors in India. Makes you feel secure, doesn't it? Internet travel to India first. Contrary to previous claims, VectorSoft owns no real estate over there either. Next, when the drawing has been converted, it comes back and a computer person looks at it. Not an engineer or architect, unless that is required by the customer and then they have to hire that out. So until a drawing is done, you could be looking at 3 different parties who get involved in the process. The Indians, the computer people in Lindsay, and another local engineering company who actually understands what's on the drawing, technically. Three parties, sharing your files via the internet. What you see is not what you get!