PDA

View Full Version : New contract within IR35 by default?



Echo1234
20th April 2016, 21:30
Hi all,
I've just been offered a new contract where the agency has said by default the contract will be within IR35.
The information the gave me was:
"From April 6th 2016 legislation has changed in respect of Travel and Subsistence (T&S) for umbrella company contractors, “restricting” T&S expenses for such workers.

The government believes that it is unfair that contractors (especially those on their umbrella’s payroll) claim tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses for home-to-work travel costs, when permanent employees cannot.

Originally this legislation was aimed at the Umbrella Market, but consequently, HMRC has decided that workers who operate through an intermediary (recruitment agency, umbrella company or PSC (a Limited Company)) would also no longer be able to claim tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses if they are under the Supervision, Direction or Control (SDC) of anyone within the contractual chain.

This denial of tax relief, will also apply to such contractors if anyone in the chain merely has the 'right' to supervise, direct or control them, even if that person does not exercise that right to SDC. From now onwards, HMRC will assume that all contractors who work through an intermediary will be under SDC unless they can prove otherwise.

If this cannot be proved by the client then we must take that as confirmation the contract will be “supervised” and that all contractors who work through an Umbrella or Limited Company (PSC) will be under SDC therefore they will be inside IR35.
"


It is not a public sector contract. Do I have any options? Or is this what all agencies are now planning to do?
I'm getting contract review by QDOS.

Pherlopolus
20th April 2016, 21:41
Which Agency is it so I can avoid them? I assume you work through a Ltd?

mudskipper
21st April 2016, 04:25
Hi all,
I've just been offered a new contract where the agency has said by default the contract will be within IR35.
The information the gave me was:
"From April 6th 2016 legislation has changed in respect of Travel and Subsistence (T&S) for umbrella company contractors, “restricting” T&S expenses for such workers.

The government believes that it is unfair that contractors (especially those on their umbrella’s payroll) claim tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses for home-to-work travel costs, when permanent employees cannot.

Originally this legislation was aimed at the Umbrella Market, but consequently, HMRC has decided that workers who operate through an intermediary (recruitment agency, umbrella company or PSC (a Limited Company)) would also no longer be able to claim tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses if they are under the Supervision, Direction or Control (SDC) of anyone within the contractual chain.

This denial of tax relief, will also apply to such contractors if anyone in the chain merely has the 'right' to supervise, direct or control them, even if that person does not exercise that right to SDC. From now onwards, HMRC will assume that all contractors who work through an intermediary will be under SDC unless they can prove otherwise.

If this cannot be proved by the client then we must take that as confirmation the contract will be “supervised” and that all contractors who work through an Umbrella or Limited Company (PSC) will be under SDC therefore they will be inside IR35.
"


It is not a public sector contract. Do I have any options? Or is this what all agencies are now planning to do?
I'm getting contract review by QDOS.


Quite simply, they are wrong. See https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/contractors-using-%E2%80%98personal-service-companies%E2%80%99-do-not-need-consider-supervision-direction-or

Echo1234
21st April 2016, 06:46
Quite simply, they are wrong. See https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/contractors-using-%E2%80%98personal-service-companies%E2%80%99-do-not-need-consider-supervision-direction-or

Thanks for that.
So does that mean I can get them to reword the contract?
Currently the title of the contract is:
"TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT WITH A LIMITED COMPANY CONTRACTOR WHO HAS OPTED OUT OF THE CONDUCT REGULATIONS (WITHIN IR35 AND UNDER SDC)"
I'm waiting for QDOS with their review, but the contract currently does not have any right of substitution clauses or the other IR35 friendly clauses.
I am running through a LTD, so if I can't get them to change the contract an IR35 friendly contract I guess my only option is to walk away?

Old Greg
21st April 2016, 06:46
Quote them your "Inside IR35 Rate".

northernladuk
21st April 2016, 06:52
Are you getting the full check including working practices. You've wasted your time and money otherwise. It's not all about the contract as working practices trump that. You can get what you want put it in but if the client has no intention to honour it then you are inside.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck it's a duck.

Being inside IR35 isn't the end of the world. Just not as lucrative. You just decide if it's for you or not.

FatLazyContractor
21st April 2016, 07:14
Could you please let us know the name of this agency?

garnet
21st April 2016, 09:05
Are you getting the full check including working practices. You've wasted your time and money otherwise. It's not all about the contract as working practices trump that. You can get what you want put it in but if the client has no intention to honour it then you are inside.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck it's a duck.

Being inside IR35 isn't the end of the world. Just not as lucrative. You just decide if it's for you or not.

Who and how exactly will check working practises BEFORE the contract/work has started?

If the contract wording is you can work wherever (home/office), whenever (not 9-5), however (methods of work), you will supply your own equipment, don't have holidays, or any other perks, what else is needed?

Out of interest.

GB9
21st April 2016, 09:20
SDC and IR35 are 2 completely different things. It's quite possible to be under SDC but outside IR35 subject to other clauses.

Scrub what was here. Seen it now.

As per other posters, who is this agency. I have a new contract with nothing like that in it and that passed the qdos review at the first attempt. It sounded like it's been worded by their administration team.

FatLazyContractor
21st April 2016, 09:22
SDC and IR35 are 2 completely different things. It's quite possible to be under SDC but outside IR35 subject to other clauses.

Could someone confirm if the bit about Ltd co contractors under SDC but outside ir35 not being able to claim expenses actually went through?

As per other posters, who is this agency. I have a new contract with nothing like that in it and that passed the qdos review at the first attempt. It sounded like it's been worded by their administration team.

:popcorn:

LondonManc
21st April 2016, 09:35
SDC and IR35 are 2 completely different things. It's quite possible to be under SDC but outside IR35 subject to other clauses.

Scrub what was here. Seen it now.

As per other posters, who is this agency. I have a new contract with nothing like that in it and that passed the qdos review at the first attempt. It sounded like it's been worded by their administration team.

What is IR35 - The Four Pillars of IR35 (http://www.charterwells.co.uk/resources/contractor-articles/what-is-ir35--the-four-pillars-of-ir35/21)

You sure?

GB9
21st April 2016, 09:57
What is IR35 - The Four Pillars of IR35 (http://www.charterwells.co.uk/resources/contractor-articles/what-is-ir35--the-four-pillars-of-ir35/21)

You sure?

Control
RoS
MOO

You only need to demonstrate one in your favout to be outside ir35. In reality the judge would look at all in parallel. However, if you were subject to control but also put a sub on site, I think the chances of being found inside ir35 would be zero.

Plenty of eminent posters have pointed out the discrepancy between brollies and Ltd regarding the possibility of claiming expenses for a Ltd but not for a brolly, even though both may be subject to control.

MrMarkyMark
21st April 2016, 10:20
Control
RoS
MOO

You only need to demonstrate one in your favout to be outside ir35. In reality the judge would look at all in parallel. However, if you were subject to control but also put a sub on site, I think the chances of being found inside ir35 would be zero.

Plenty of eminent posters have pointed out the discrepancy between brollies and Ltd regarding the possibility of claiming expenses for a Ltd but not for a brolly, even though both may be subject to control.

Really, your view is miles away from mine.

SpontaneousOrder
21st April 2016, 10:27
Really, your view is miles away from mine.

That's the rule, unless it changed recently.

GB9
21st April 2016, 10:27
Really, your view is miles away from mine.

Case law.

Examples on right of this thread.

Echo1234
21st April 2016, 10:31
Hi just an update,
Spoke with the agency, People Source for those asking, and they are refusing to change the contract.
Their reasoning is because "of the new regulations" all contracts they are signing up will be within IR35, not sure if they mean with the current client or with every contractor they sign on, because of SDC because I will need to report to a line manage and work specified number of hours. Also had the line "we have a contractor who is starting Monday and he is in IR35 and not complaining"

The review from QDOS has came back as this:
"I am unable to complete your Full Contract Review today as the agency have issued you with the incorrect terms. The contract title contains the term “(WITHIN IR35 AND UNDER SDC)” – which states you are providing services within IR35 and are subject to the supervision, direction and control of the client. The contract refers to AWR throughout, as well as paid leave and rest breaks. These are all issues that should not apply to a limited company contractor. I recommend, therefore, that you ask the agency for the correct terms."

vetran
21st April 2016, 10:35
Hi just an update,
Spoke with the agency, People Source for those asking, and they are refusing to change the contract.
Their reasoning is because "of the new regulations" all contracts they are signing up will be within IR35, not sure if they mean with the current client or with every contractor they sign on, because of SDC because I will need to report to a line manage and work specified number of hours. Also had the line "we have a contractor who is starting Monday and he is in IR35 and not complaining"

The review from QDOS has came back as this:
"I am unable to complete your Full Contract Review today as the agency have issued you with the incorrect terms. The contract title contains the term “(WITHIN IR35 AND UNDER SDC)” – which states you are providing services within IR35 and are subject to the supervision, direction and control of the client. The contract refers to AWR throughout, as well as paid leave and rest breaks. These are all issues that should not apply to a limited company contractor. I recommend, therefore, that you ask the agency for the correct terms."

are you willing to walk if they won't supply the correct terms? That is pretty much your only option now.

MrMarkyMark
21st April 2016, 10:38
OK, but surely putting a sub on site would actually cover ROS and MOO, in reality, concurrently?

Anyways, @ OP looks like you may have hit a brick wall with this one, unless you can get the terms changed?
Even then the working conditions sound well iffy.

Eirikur
21st April 2016, 10:40
Quote them your "Inside IR35 Rate".

This remark may have been in jest, but it made me wonder, does anybody ever quote two rates to an agency one in case the contract falls Inside and one outside of IR35?

Echo1234
21st April 2016, 10:40
are you willing to walk if they won't supply the correct terms? That is pretty much your only option now.

Yeah I can walk away. Don't think the money will be worth it as I will need to work away from home so not being able to claim expenses will be a big deal.

I wonder now if it will be the case that when you apply for new contract roles will you also need to ask the agent is the daily rate an IR35 rate or not?

BlasterBates
21st April 2016, 10:49
I think this will become increasingly common, and may well be driven by the client as much as the agency. They're going to be increasingly nervous about being responsible for paying NI.

GB9
21st April 2016, 10:54
OK, but surely putting a sub on site would actually cover ROS and MOO, in reality, concurrently?

Anyways, @ OP looks like you may have hit a brick wall with this one, unless you can get the terms changed?
Even then the working conditions sound well iffy.

It absolutely nails RoS.

HMRC don't like RoS, because it is a right I. E. you don't need to enforce it. They don't like MOO either, in part because no-one really knows if it's during or at the end of a contract (there are examples somewhere) and because you can argue that by turning down an extension there was no MOO and hence the contract fell outside IR35.

HMRC do like SDC because it's easy to argue there must be some sort of it, regardless of how weak. Additionally they set the bar low for themselves by stating it just needs to be one of the three. And just in case that doesn't hit the spot, they are also assuming SDC applies by default and the burden of proof is on us to show otherwise. It's nice to be able to make up the rules.

OP, is it just that client or all people source clients? Personally I would tell them to fo or quote a higher rate. However, if you are getting g paid lunch breaks etc then it may just be that the client wants that contract is within ir35 and that's the end of it.

suityou01
21st April 2016, 10:55
They don't want a contractor, they want a temporary worker. You are a contractor. It's not a fit for the role and the agency should have identified this before submitting you.

They have wasted everyone's time including their own.

Move on.

northernladuk
21st April 2016, 10:57
This remark may have been in jest, but it made me wonder, does anybody ever quote two rates to an agency one in case the contract falls Inside and one outside of IR35?

I can't imagine this would work for one minute. The agency has a gig on offer with set terms. Take it or leave it. They don't care if you are inside or outside. What you see is what you get. They aren't going to go pestering the client over rates because of your tax position.

Pondlife
21st April 2016, 10:57
HMRC do like SDC because it's easy to argue there must be some sort of it, regardless of how weak. Additionally they set the bar low for themselves by stating it just needs to be one of the three. And just in case that doesn't hit the spot, they are also assuming SDC applies by default and the burden of proof is on us to show otherwise. It's nice to be able to make up the rules.

AFAIK this is not the case for IR35. It is however the case for T&S for brolly workers. IR35 remains unchanged and based on existing case law which reflects S & D & C as the test.

Echo1234
21st April 2016, 11:02
I can't imagine this would work for one minute. The agency has a gig on offer with set terms. Take it or leave it. They don't care if you are inside or outside. What you see is what you get. They aren't going to go pestering the client over rates because of your tax position.

True the agent or the end client doesn't care, but as a contractor you would need to know before hand what the agency intends to do with regards to IR35 so you can work out if the contract is worth it?

northernladuk
21st April 2016, 11:04
Control
RoS
MOO

You only need to demonstrate one in your favout to be outside ir35. In reality the judge would look at all in parallel. However, if you were subject to control but also put a sub on site, I think the chances of being found inside ir35 would be zero.

Plenty of eminent posters have pointed out the discrepancy between brollies and Ltd regarding the possibility of claiming expenses for a Ltd but not for a brolly, even though both may be subject to control.

Now I've heard this a lot and there is some merit in making sure you have at the very least a clear pass on one of these I don't think it's nearly enough and I certainly wouldn't be breathing easier on that alone for a couple of points..

Firstly... what do you need to demonstrate it beyond argument? Until you apply RoS it's just wording. How do you demonstrate there is no MoO until after the gig? Who's definition of D&C is enough to be water tight. I just don't think you can demonstrate any of the clearly enough to take away any doubt.

Secondly.. Demonstrating one might help but it certainly gives HMRC enough ammo to dig hard.. and that is often the worst case of investigations. You might win but by god it's going to be a harrowing experience.

Thirdly.. How do you know there are not a whole host of other flags, primarily part & parcel that trumps your one pillar of evidence? How does that evidence you have degrade over time as well. In the JLJ case there were a whole host of factors that came in to play that started off with him in the clear and then royally shafted him at the end.. the main one was part and parcel... and that isn't one of your pillars...

I think hoping that one pillar will put you in the clear is a very risky approach. The best approach is to have as many covered as you can and a whole raft of supporting evidence.. i.e. you do things properly so you are a supplier, not a permatractor looking for an easy out.

Pondlife
21st April 2016, 11:05
I can't imagine this would work for one minute. The agency has a gig on offer with set terms. Take it or leave it. They don't care if you are inside or outside. What you see is what you get. They aren't going to go pestering the client over rates because of your tax position.

I think in the future it will be less about tax and more about T&S costs. For 'inside' gigs the contractor pool will be locals only. Maybe this will make them rethink those mandatory meetings. :rolleyes:

northernladuk
21st April 2016, 11:08
They don't want a contractor, they want a temporary worker. You are a contractor. It's not a fit for the role and the agency should have identified this before submitting you.

They have wasted everyone's time including their own.

Move on.

FAO Mods.. It appears SU's account has been hacked. Can we temporarily suspend it until he posts something along the normal lines so we know it's him?

jamesbrown
21st April 2016, 11:16
This thread is a great advertisement for the failure of gov't policy w/r to IR35. There are as many different understandings as posters :laugh

To the OP: you're wasting your time with this one. Also, FWIW, there's little point in sending a contract for review when it's a clear fail. Opinions vary on this, but my view is that you should negotiate to contract to a point that it's worth reviewing. Even if you could get the contract completely rewritten, which seems unlikely, their intention is probably to hire a temp, and the working practices would reflect that.

More generally, in terms of reviewing working practices, the best thing you can do is to discuss the working arrangements with the client (i.e. to add some colour to the contractual terms) and relay this to the reviewer, but you never really know until you've been onsite for a while, at which point you should document and re-review (informally, at least).

Although SDC has been around for decades, the case law test for control is broader than SDC (which is most closely related to the "how" element of control), and it remains to be seen how the "SDC Test" will be viewed in future case law. That being said, the interpretation of control is very well-established as being not "any" degree of control, but a sufficient degree of control. The facts are interpreted in the round to establish whether the picture is one of employment according to the degree of control ("bound hand and foot"). As others have indicated, this is only one aspect of IR35, but it's worth bearing in mind that the courts frequently differ from HMRC in their interpretation of law. In my view, SDC isn't a game changer if you pass the "how" element of an existing control test, but having the client form a judgment is a game changer, and this sort of pre-emptive behaviour by clients/agents is an early warning of that.

Qdos Contractor
21st April 2016, 11:16
Who and how exactly will check working practises BEFORE the contract/work has started?

If the contract wording is you can work wherever (home/office), whenever (not 9-5), however (methods of work), you will supply your own equipment, don't have holidays, or any other perks, what else is needed?

Out of interest.

Obviously doing a working practices review prior to starting a contract isn't going to give the full picture, but it will cover some of the more general business practices and possibly factors you know are going to apply to your specific role/industry.

If someone has a working practices review prior to inception of the contract, we would always suggest that they are revisited once the work has actually started.

FatLazyContractor
21st April 2016, 11:17
FAO Mods.. It appears SU's account has been hacked. Can we temporarily suspend it until he posts something along the normal lines so we know it's him?

:rollin:

GB9
21st April 2016, 11:26
I think hoping that one pillar will put you in the clear is a very risky approach. The best approach is to have as many covered as you can and a whole raft of supporting evidence.. i.e. you do things properly so you are a supplier, not a permatractor looking for an easy out.
Agree, the more covered bases the better, although there is some case law that states if 'x' applies ghen there cannot be employment.

northernladuk
21st April 2016, 11:31
Obviously doing a working practices review prior to starting a contract isn't going to give the full picture, but it will cover some of the more general business practices and possibly factors you know are going to apply to your specific role/industry.

If someone has a working practices review prior to inception of the contract, we would always suggest that they are revisited once the work has actually started.

I would guess you can cover some fairly major discrepancies though. Your contract is between agent and your limited. I'll bet most cases where you get something changed, particularly around RoS, the agent doesn't confirm it with the client. If the client doesn't know or doesn't agree then your working practice has immediately trashed your contract. Contacting the client to confirm that they will honour RoS before you start and some other fairly basic aspects will be pretty easy to do.

northernladuk
21st April 2016, 11:31
Agree, the more covered bases the better, although there is some case law that states if 'x' applies ghen there cannot be employment.

Indeed but there is also case law that has had RoS thrown out as a sham.... it's bloody minefield so diligence is key.

GB9
21st April 2016, 11:31
I can't imagine this would work for one minute. The agency has a gig on offer with set terms. Take it or leave it. They don't care if you are inside or outside. What you see is what you get. They aren't going to go pestering the client over rates because of your tax position.

Agree in part with this. The agency has s gig, take it or leave it.

The but I disagree with is around the tax position. That is being dictated by the client I. E. The client wants someone inside ir35 and as a result, the role holder pays more tax. If the client wanted someone outside ir35 then the role holder pays less. The client's requirement is dictating the tax rate to be paid.

This is different to e. g. the dividend tax, which is payable regardless of whether a client is involved or not.

northernladuk
21st April 2016, 11:35
Agree in part with this. The agency has s gig, take it or leave it.

The but I disagree with is around the tax position. That is being dictated by the client I. E. The client wants someone inside ir35 and as a result, the role holder pays more tax. If the client wanted someone outside ir35 then the role holder pays less. The client's requirement is dictating the tax rate to be paid.

This is different to e. g. the dividend tax, which is payable regardless of whether a client is involved or not.

OK, we'll have to beg to differ. The client has a requirement for some work to be done and he has a budget to cover it. That's it IMO. He doesn't have budget X for someone to be in one tax position and budget Y for someone else. He doesn't care. That's how I see it. Client is making it difficult by not understanding I agree but I just cannot see a two tiered approach to funding it just because we use a tax fudge.

eek
21st April 2016, 11:38
This thread is a great advertisement for the failure of gov't policy w/r to IR35. There are as many different understandings as posters :laugh

To the OP: you're wasting your time with this one. Also, FWIW, there's little point in sending a contract for review when it's a clear fail. Opinions vary on this, but my view is that you should negotiate to contract to a point that it's worth reviewing. Even if you could get the contract completely rewritten, which seems unlikely, their intention is probably to hire a temp, and the working practices would reflect that.

More generally, in terms of reviewing working practices, the best thing you can do is to discuss the working arrangements with the client (i.e. to add some colour to the contractual terms) and relay this to the reviewer, but you never really know until you've been onsite for a while, at which point you should document and re-review (informally, at least).

Although SDC has been around for decades, the case law test for control is broader than SDC (which is most closely related to the "how" element of control), and it remains to be seen how the "SDC Test" will be viewed in future case law. That being said, the interpretation of control is very well-established as being not "any" degree of control, but a sufficient degree of control. The facts are interpreted in the round to establish whether the picture is one of employment according to the degree of control ("bound hand and foot"). As others have indicated, this is only one aspect of IR35, but it's worth bearing in mind that the courts frequently differ from HMRC in their interpretation of law. In my view, SDC isn't a game changer if you pass the "how" element of an existing control test, but having the client form a judgment is a game changer, and this sort of pre-emptive behaviour by clients/agents is an early warning of that.

So far it's one very risk adverse agency implementing it. To the OP you only real option is to walk away but apologize to the end client (I.e. Call the person who interviewed you and explain that due to the unwillingness of the agency to provide an acceptable contract you can't accept the contract).

That then Gives them the chance to bin people source off their supplier list and allow you to select someone else. I doubt it would work but you never know..

eek
21st April 2016, 11:40
Agree in part with this. The agency has s gig, take it or leave it.

The but I disagree with is around the tax position. That is being dictated by the client I. E. The client wants someone inside ir35 and as a result, the role holder pays more tax. If the client wanted someone outside ir35 then the role holder pays less. The client's requirement is dictating the tax rate to be paid.

This is different to e. g. the dividend tax, which is payable regardless of whether a client is involved or not.

Does the client want someone under ir35 or is the agency just utterly risk adverse with a crap legal advisor?

Eirikur
21st April 2016, 11:42
I can't imagine this would work for one minute. The agency has a gig on offer with set terms. Take it or leave it. They don't care if you are inside or outside. What you see is what you get. They aren't going to go pestering the client over rates because of your tax position.

You are probably right, what I will try next time an agent asks me for exclusive representation (and I think my chances to get the contract are pretty small anyway) is add in the email something along the lines of "provided the contract between your agency and my Ltd will be outside IR35"

LondonManc
21st April 2016, 11:47
This remark may have been in jest, but it made me wonder, does anybody ever quote two rates to an agency one in case the contract falls Inside and one outside of IR35?


So far it's one very risk adverse agency implementing it. To the OP you only real option is to walk away but apologize to the end client (I.e. Call the person who interviewed you and explain that due to the unwillingness of the agency to provide an acceptable contract you can't accept the contract).

That then Gives them the chance to bin people source off their supplier list and allow you to select someone else. I doubt it would work but you never know..

There will be too many permatractors and bob showaddiwaddis who will blindly sign the contract.

GB9
21st April 2016, 11:53
[QUOTE=northernladuk;2241928]OK, we'll have to beg to differ. The client has a requirement for some work to be done and he has a budget to cover it. That's it IMO.





Actually, i agree with what you are saying. Client wants a worker within ir35 for a fixed budget. Take it or leave it.

But is that what they really want or as someone else posted, are they risk adverse, badly advised or just honest about their requirement? Either way, the likely outcome is that they will get a different group of candidates as a result.

GB9
21st April 2016, 11:54
There will be too many permatractors and bob showaddiwaddis who will blindly sign the contract.

Yes

suityou01
21st April 2016, 12:08
Does the client want someone under ir35 or is the agency just utterly risk adverse with a crap legal advisor?

To be fair it smells like HR have a hand in this one.

Mordac
21st April 2016, 12:17
This remark may have been in jest, but it made me wonder, does anybody ever quote two rates to an agency one in case the contract falls Inside and one outside of IR35?

Yes. Always. It tends to sharpen the mind of both agency and client when the day rate shifts by around £100. Doesn't always work, mind, but these days I tend not to use agencies at all, but that said, some agencies are more helpful than others.

eek
21st April 2016, 12:18
To be fair it smells like HR have a hand in this one.

Where is the comment in the op's posts that show as much.

HR won't like this. SDC will push temporary workers far too close to employees for their comfort.

Trust me this stuff is giving both my brother and sister in law nightmares (they are both senior hr bods with masters in employment law).

Remember there are two sides to every battle and the phrase "could these SDC changes result in more people claiming employee rights or more tribunals" works wonders...

Im looking forward to the weekend when I can discuss parasol still allowing their employees to claim expenses...

eek
21st April 2016, 12:19
Yes. Always. It tends to sharpen the mind of both agency and client when the day rate shifts by around £100. Doesn't always work, mind, but these days I tend not to use agencies at all, but that said, some agencies are more helpful than others.

Only £100? Mine was 50% more. It focused their minds completely.

GB9
21st April 2016, 12:35
There will be too many permatractors and bob showaddiwaddis who will blindly sign the contract.
Removed

Mordac
21st April 2016, 12:55
Only £100? Mine was 50% more. It focused their minds completely.

If I put mine up by 50% I'd be approaching Accenture rates territory, and they'd tell me to do one. £100 covers me for increased NI, and the lack of expenses etc. IMHO we are all being slowly but surely shafted out of existence, the greedier we get the quicker it will happen. You know what they say about death and taxes - it's a right bugger when you get both at the same time...:throw:

Echo1234
21st April 2016, 13:01
Latest update.
Just called agency to let them know I won't take on the contract. They are still pushing the line that all agencies and contractors will be working in the same way from now on, everyone will be within IR35. Anyway just told them only way I can take on the job is if it is not within IR35 for it to be worth while to me, he has now gone to speak to his supervisor. Not really holding out much hope, time to move on...

Mordac
21st April 2016, 13:14
They are still pushing the line that all agencies and contractors will be working in the same way from now on, everyone will be within IR35.

That's a pile of horsecrap. Clients will always need contractors / freelancers for specific skills and projects, therefore clients and agencies will need to adjust their working practices, or they will find themselves with a very small talent pool. Or the rates go up according to Hector's demands. :mad:

northernladuk
21st April 2016, 13:29
That's a pile of horsecrap. Clients will always need contractors / freelancers for specific skills and projects, therefore clients and agencies will need to adjust their working practices, or they will find themselves with a very small talent pool. Or the rates go up according to Hector's demands. :mad:

Yep, which is why we need to be clearer about what roles and in and out and leave the roles that fit the needs above to contractors. Chances of it happening though? The battle continues...

eek
21st April 2016, 13:49
If I put mine up by 50% I'd be approaching Accenture rates territory, and they'd tell me to do one. £100 covers me for increased NI, and the lack of expenses etc. IMHO we are all being slowly but surely shafted out of existence, the greedier we get the quicker it will happen. You know what they say about death and taxes - it's a right bugger when you get both at the same time...:throw:
In my case it's the difference between 50% of a consultancies rate and 75% of that rate. Personally I really should be charging 150% of that rate as I only come in to fix the mess the consultancies have created.

Mordac
21st April 2016, 13:54
In my case it's the difference between 50% of a consultancies rate and 75% of that rare. Personally I really should be charging 150% of that rate as I only come in to fix the mess the consultancies have created.

Very good point well made Sir.

Hobosapien
21st April 2016, 14:31
I have a feeling that the numpty agencies (most of them :eyes) will default to this type of pre-emptive contract, as it's easier for them to cover their arses just because they think they will need to, rather than try to understand the reality.

So the majority of contracts will go this way, and the majority of contractors will accept them.

We on here will become like that lot on Housepricecrash, bunkered up for years as things get progressively worse. Yet there will be rewards for those who seek the proper contracts on better terms.

What an opportunity. [insert smilie of your choice: :smokin :rolleyes: :suicide: ]

eek
21st April 2016, 14:46
I have a feeling that the numpty agencies (most of them :eyes) will default to this type of pre-emptive contract, as it's easier for them to cover their arses just because they think they will need to, rather than try to understand the reality.

So the majority of contracts will go this way, and the majority of contractors will accept them.

We on here will become like that lot on Housepricecrash, bunkered up for years as things get progressively worse. Yet there will be rewards for those who seek the proper contracts on better terms.

What an opportunity. [insert smilie of your choice: :smokin :rolleyes: :suicide: ]

It's why I'm carefully moving myself up and out of this game.

I spent 3 months finding a contract that was interesting and I've made sure that any intellectual property I do (and there is at least 4 bits) is mine to sell elsewhere.

Hobosapien
21st April 2016, 14:59
It's why I'm carefully moving myself up and out of this game.

I spent 3 months finding a contract that was interesting and I've made sure that any intellectual property I do (and there is at least 4 bits) is mine to sell elsewhere.


Interesting approach. See contracting as the plan B, and as a means to an end for plan A. Take time to find the right contract to help you achieve your goals of getting out of contracting and become more of a supplier.

I guess that's easier with a niche.

Maybe someone has a plan B that's identifying all the niches not yet saturated.

easyrider
24th April 2016, 11:30
I've just opened a contract from PeopleSource with the same title "TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT WITH A LIMITED COMPANY CONTRACTOR WHO HAS OPTED OUT OF THE CONDUCT REGULATIONS (WITHIN IR35 AND UNDER SDC)". What is even more disturbing is the mention of 'web forms' and 'support' in the role description.

Hobosapien
24th April 2016, 11:56
Maybe there's a thread/sticky somewhere on here (or there should be) where we can add agencies with these types of default contracts trying to force being inside IR35, with feedback on how flexible the agency turned out to be on getting the terms changed or a different template used.

We could then have a list of agencies to be wary of, and a way for us to put pressure on them by showing we are aware of their poor default stance.

Not quite as dramatic as a blacklist or anything that may cause legal issues but at least a way of informing CUKers of agencies to watch out for, and therefore an advantage to those agencies providing a better service.

If not a good idea, I'm sure AIPSE will have our backs with this. :rolleyes:

northernladuk
24th April 2016, 12:00
It's just not worth it and would just ultimately spread false information. The contract should also reflect the upper contract with the client so it is highly possible the contract will change per client. Agencies might change their ways sonourblist would also be out of date. It will also just suit the tickbox contractor that hasn't the nouse to deal with agents, bearing in mind this is our actual job.

SueEllen
24th April 2016, 13:34
It's just not worth it and would just ultimately spread false information. The contract should also reflect the upper contract with the client so it is highly possible the contract will change per client. Agencies might change their ways sonourblist would also be out of date. It will also just suit the tickbox contractor that hasn't the nouse to deal with agents, bearing in mind this is our actual job.

WHS

I've been on sites where virtually every contractor I talked to through the same agency had negotiated slightly different terms.

There were things in the upper contract that should have been incorporated, but it was up to the contractor to demand they were put in in full. Whether they were or not depended on whether the contractor got the contract reviewed and who reviewed the contract.

easyrider
24th April 2016, 17:20
The contract has an 'audit' clause that seems to mean that my Ltd can be audited to make sure it is doing what they want it to tax wise.
It's wrong on many levels, but bills have to be paid and it's local.
What about the clients tax affairs? Are their directors on the dodgy dealings leaked list? Do they have a record of (IR35 friendly) non or late payments to contractors?
I hate this feeling of persecution that pervades these days.
I suppose an alternative is to just continue as if outside of IR35 and keep a stash in case the mafia come calling! I don't know how the NI etc would be taken from an inside IR35 contract, do I do it or does the client remove it at source?

northernladuk
24th April 2016, 17:36
So you don't know so going to just plough on regardless?

Mordac
24th April 2016, 17:56
Not quite as dramatic as a blacklist or anything that may cause legal issues but at least a way of informing CUKers of agencies to watch out for, and therefore an advantage to those agencies providing a better service.

Do you think any agency gives a monkey's chuff what you, me, or anyone else thinks? Legal issues? Something to do with where the sun doesn't shine springs to mind...:laugh

easyrider
24th April 2016, 18:09
So you don't know so going to just plough on regardless?

I've not had the offer yet, still early days. I'll call IPSE! To the bat mobile Robin.

psychocandy
25th April 2016, 07:46
I think this is going to happen more and more. Crap legislation, scaremongering etc.

You get clients who get scared and get the wrong end of the stick. Then you've got agencies who, as always, are just plain stupid. This is what happens.

Until they start to see that contractors are knocking back stuff like this then it'll continue unfortunately. I'm betting a lot will still take things like this.

One thing though - and I know this has been done to death. If they're trying to add opted out as a contract term surely this is illegal? Pity we haven't really got someone who can smack their arses for doing things like this - that would help.

Echo1234
28th April 2016, 14:01
So latest update.
After a week People Source came back to me to say they have advised the client to change the contract terms and would like to bring me back.
Unlucky for them I've just managed to get another contract.
I'm guessing they are struggling for find any contractors willing to work within their contract terms

Hobosapien
28th April 2016, 14:11
So latest update.
After a week People Source came back to me to say they have advised the client to change the contract terms and would like to bring me back.
Unlucky for them I've just managed to get another contract.
I'm guessing they are struggling for find any contractors willing to work within their contract terms

:yay:

And that's the way they'll learn.

SlipTheJab
28th April 2016, 14:36
So latest update.
After a week People Source came back to me to say they have advised the client to change the contract terms and would like to bring me back.
Unlucky for them I've just managed to get another contract.
I'm guessing they are struggling for find any contractors willing to work within their contract terms

Well done for telling them to do one, I for one will be avoiding any roles adertised by this outfit, waste of my time if at the end of the interview process they bang over a swiss cheese contract like that :winker:

Mordac
28th April 2016, 16:34
:yay:

And that's the way they'll learn.

Guessing it will take a while though...

easyrider
25th May 2016, 12:38
Same here : PeopleSource changed the contract on my request. Then they offered the role to someone else, still someone mentioned 'sharepoint' in the interview so that's probably all well and good.