Q from a newbie - Using contractors/freelancers - documentation required?

[northernladuk]

Thanks! That's what I've been saying, to treat them the same as we would a plumber coming to do a set job. I'm getting push back though as there are times when a certain work area needs additional general resource rather than a specific timed project.

Then that role is most likely inside.

[EssjDuff]

Good stuff. You do right to still look in to it to protect the contractors you have and ones going forwards. If you have a mix and haven't looked in to this before I'd imagine not all of them are in a very good position at this point in time. Both from a culture/working practice and contractual position.

Which is an issue right now, not just for April 2020. There is always some idiot around that is willing to take you to ET/FTT even before the changes.


I don't see why they are no no in B2B to be honest. You still need to stop other businesses connected to yours passing/re-using information etc. Problem really is how are you going to police it with small one man band companies doing what they want? I'm sure most will sign it and won't give a jot about it to be honest, and if so what are you going to do about it. Next to no contractors have ever been taking to court over things like this. That said, it doesn't mean you should follow proper process and diligence.

Handcuffss have to be explicit and under 1 year to be even close to being enforceable. If you use an agent the handcuff is really to stop them going elsewhere and the agent losing commission. Not sure how a handcuff imposed by the client really works when the contractor is in a relationship with the agency not the client TBH.

But speak to QDOS.... we are obviously biased here as we want you to make it right for us which might not be right for your business.

I hear you, I wouldn't blame anyone for trying to claim worker/ee status to be honest, only looking out for themselves at the end of the day and no-one can argue with that! I just want to make sure they can't now I know a bit more about how our teams work with them.

I don't know why I thought covenants were a no-no....I came across Pimlico v Smith and it seemed that the existence of one impacted the ruling, I'm probably a bit confused with that + some being unenforceable if they covered an unreasonable time period. I agree they are probably more of a threat than anything of actual substance....would we spend time and money trying to find out if we suffered a direct loss? Probably not, especially as it could spoil our relationship with the client.

Thanks again, great forum, loving some of the funny threads and the emoji's are hilarious.

[EssjDuff]

Then that role is most likely inside.

I think so too.

I have a info gathering meeting (why, when, how, where etc) with the head of that department, will bring it forwards!!!

[EssjDuff]

The clue should be in our title of CONTRACTor.
That said there are ton of contractors out there that don't have a clue. We see them pop up on here in trouble because they are not operating properly. Issues with payment and termination because they never got a proper contract, IR35 problems because they have no statement of work and just a job title and so on.

If people want something less than a contract and a detailed SoW for the task to be carried out then they are just making a rod for their own back.

Ah sorry I keep crossing over with replies!

Yes as I say I want to protect these guys as well as us. I have been surprised at some of the info I'm hearing about how the arrangements, sounds like some of them have been written on the back of a fag packet at times.

[northernladuk]

Very nice to see a company taking it seriously so good luck with it.

[malvolio]

Thanks! That's what I've been saying, to treat them the same as we would a plumber coming to do a set job. I'm getting push back though as there are times when a certain work area needs additional general resource rather than a specific timed project.

Sounds like I just need some help connecting everything together so I will follow up with QDOS and IPSE as recommended, plus people in here probably more likely to listen to an external consultant, I am well aware they think I'm just being a jobsworth at the minute trying to make their lives harder

OK, but you (and they) must start to distinguish between manpower replacement/temporary resource and resources brought in for specific purposes. The former may be under IR35 (or may not, under some circumstances, such as your cleaner) while the latter should not be.

Don't try a one-size-fits-all solution: it will turn round and bite you in some way - plus many skilled contractors won't even apply for an inside IR35 role. Both IPSE and QDOS will I hope stress the need for intelligent application of the rules to specific situations.

[EssjDuff]

OK, but you (and they) must start to distinguish between manpower replacement/temporary resource and resources brought in for specific purposes. The former may be under IR35 (or may not, under some circumstances, such as your cleaner) while the latter should not be.

Don't try a one-size-fits-all solution: it will turn round and bite you in some way - plus many skilled contractors won't even apply for an inside IR35 role. Both IPSE and QDOS will I hope stress the need for intelligent application of the rules to specific situations.

Noted - thank you very much, everyone has been really helpful and I am genuinely keen to make sure our actions don't put any of our contractors at risk of IR35 and/or EE status for them as much as us. I'll come back and update in case any lurkers are going through the same.