Turning a negative into a positive - MOO Turning a negative into a positive - MOO
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,228

    Default Turning a negative into a positive - MOO

    Bit of a crap day full of falling out with one of the onsite permies - the details aren't important. it will either be sorted in the morning or I will be having an early Christmas break.

    To cut a long story short I am asked to stop working today while they deal with the issue internally (I have been in my home office last two days) and then I can hopefully get unblocked and carry on.

    Anyway - engages contractor brain - remembers all the recent MOO wins - email to client that I will only be charging for half of day due to no work available to do - nice bit of IR35 evidence.

    Just raising it as reminder of actually how easy it is to protect yourself along the way from IR35 and to remember to record the evidence.

    I have no advice on how to not fall out with the permies.

  2. #2

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,675

    Default

    Good thinking.

    Now spill the beans on the fallout

  3. #3

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paralytic View Post
    Good thinking.

    Now spill the beans on the fallout
    Lets see how tomorrow goes and if I am on an early Christmas break

  4. #4

    Double Godlike!

    ladymuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,001

    Default

    MOO is pretty easy to evidence with very little effort. Good reminder though

  5. #5

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    44,623

    Default

    You'd be wrong then. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with MoO.

    MoO (or the absence of) is about the obligation to provide further work after the initial agreed piece of work is complete. It has nothing to do with the actual contract you are in.

    While you are in a contract there are actually obligations in effect. These are for you to do the work given and for them to pay you for it. Being asked not to come in is covered by the fact you are paid per day worked. If you don't work you don't get paid as per the T&M nature of the contract. You taking holidays is exactly the same as the client asking you not to come in.

    It is great defense being asked not to work yes. It shows financial risk and a different way of working to a permies but it doesn't demonstrate MoO.

    The best way to use MoO as a defence is for your client to cancel the Contract when there is no more work to do. You can prove there was no obligation to provide work once the agreed piece has finished.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 7th November 2019 at 11:56.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  6. #6

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    12,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    You'd be wrong then. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with MoO.

    MoO (or the absence of) is about the obligation to provide further work after the initial agreed piece of work is complete. It has nothing to do with the actual contract you are in.

    While you are in a contract there are actually obligations in effect. These are for you to do the work given and for them to pay you for it. Being asked not to come in is covered by the fact you are paid per day worked. If you don't work you don't get paid as per the T&M nature of the contract. You taking holidays is exactly the same as the client asking you not to come in.

    It is great defense being asked not to work yes. It shows financial risk and a different way of working to a permies but it doesn't demonstrate MoO.

    The best way to use MoO as a defence is for your client to cancel the Contract when there is no more work to do. You can prove there was no obligation to provide work once the agreed piece has finished.
    There was a key IR35 case between Rolls Royce and one of its contractors, who was sent home without pay when the systems failed. that, according to the court, demonstrated that the test of an irreducible level of Mutuality had been clearly demonstrated.

    So yes, MoO is important, and the OP has demonstrated the level of it in their case.
    Blog? What blog...?

  7. #7

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    44,623

    Default

    I think you mean a case with JCB where the contractor left to go to Rolls Royce.

    You are correct so could use thst as case law but IMO, and it would be interesting to hear from the pros, that was a weak test. The notes I saw from that are pretty wooly and they also threw in the fact he could terminate early as evidence of MoO which it isn't either so an odd conclusion. Good one for the contractor but odd.

    Inside the contract there can be a level MoO and it gets into bi and unilateral agreements which is was beyond my simple brain.

    If we took the JCB example then just the fact a contractor says he's unavailable for a week while he's on holiday you could argue he has a slam dunk absence of MoO.,one of the three pillars ticked therefor no one will ever lose an IR35 case. We know that's simply not true.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  8. #8

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Interesting how even Malvolio and Northernladuk still after all these years disagree what is MoO and what isn't

  9. #9

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    44,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PTP View Post
    Interesting how even Malvolio and Northernladuk still after all these years disagree what is MoO and what isn't
    I dont think we disagree as such. He's pointed a case out that doesn't meet the thinking of articles about MoO so we are just discussing it.

    The fact it's such a grey area after all this time odd but good for us. It means it's easier to argue either way and win. If HMRC had nailed it watertight there'd be no confusion and more difficult for us if that makes sense.

    He's probably right and the OPs got himself some good evidence. My point was to raise a comment about the misconception that MoO is about being able to take the day of in contracts and its rather mor complicated than that.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  10. #10

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    44,623

    Default

    And reading the thread again I wish I hadn't opened this tin of worms in the way I did. There must have been a simpler way to point out that being sent home for half a day isn't slam dunk MoO.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •