We are finding that a lot of people think you can 'opt-out' of the Agency Worker Regulations in the same way as opting out of the Employment Business and Employment Agency Regulations 2003 - just to clarify they are two totally different things. You cannot decide whether or not you will fall within the scope of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 - it will depend on your working practises. Any attempt to 'opt-out' would be viewed as avoidance.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Opting out of the AWR
Collapse
X
-
Opting out of the AWR
-
-
Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View PostWe are finding that a lot of people think you can 'opt-out' of the Agency Worker Regulations in the same way as opting out of the Employment Business and Employment Agency Regulations 2003 - just to clarify they are two totally different things. You cannot decide whether or not you will fall within the scope of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 - it will depend on your working practises. Any attempt to 'opt-out' would be viewed as avoidance.
Are you saying that supplying an agency with a declaration that you consider yourself to be outside the scope of AWR could be detrimental ?When freedom comes along, don't PISH in the water supply.....Comment
-
Originally posted by TestMangler View PostI've had agency chasing me to do this (and started a thread at the time). It was more a declaration that you considered you were outside of their scope rather than an attempt to 'opt out'.
Are you saying that supplying an agency with a declaration that you consider yourself to be outside the scope of AWR could be detrimental ?
* OK, so having a linmited comany and a series of engagements outside IR35 kind of covers that. Perhaps. Who knows...Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostDecalre what you like, if you can't demonstrate you are genuinely in business*, you're in scope. You would do as well t sign a declaration that you are exempt from the law of gravity. If agencies wnat you to sign such things then do so, it means absolutely bugger all in the real world. Unless, of course, they give YourCo a clear B2B contract with none of hte pseudo-employee rubish in it...
* OK, so having a linmited comany and a series of engagements outside IR35 kind of covers that. Perhaps. Who knows...
I'm aware of all that Mal, I've done the 'genuinely in business thing' for 2 1/2 years with HMRC and come out the other side.
What i'm asking is, is the OP saying that signing some sort of declaration (which i agree is a waste of time) has some sort of detrimental effect. That is what is being implied in the original post.
In the my original post on this subject some weeks ago, I commented that this may lead, for the first time, to agencies coming out with better B2B contracts. The usual suspects shouted me down with the usual 'you need to demonstrate, working practices, staff toilets' bollocks that you normally do.
The trick here, is to read what was written before commentingWhen freedom comes along, don't PISH in the water supply.....Comment
-
Originally posted by TestMangler View PostThe trick here, is to read what was written before commenting
HTHBlog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostGood idea. Read this - Hey, look at what we just did. We killed off IR35! | Contractor Accountants
HTH
However, I asked the OP if she was implying that 'opting out' (which i know can't be done) or declaring yourself outside AWR as you are in business on your own account, can be detrimental as she claimed it would be 'avoidance'.
None of what you've posted above explains the OPs initial assertion. That is what i'm seeking clarification of.When freedom comes along, don't PISH in the water supply.....Comment
-
Originally posted by TestMangler View PostAgain, I 100% agree with the sentiment, although, I assume thinking on this will be as about as joined up as IR35 vs employee rights, which are totally different things but use the same tests in court to determine status.
However, I asked the OP if she was implying that 'opting out' (which i know can't be done) or declaring yourself outside AWR as you are in business on your own account, can be detrimental as she claimed it would be 'avoidance'.
None of what you've posted above explains the OPs initial assertion. That is what i'm seeking clarification of.
The problem is that the whole thing is being done backwards; as that blog says, the best answer is to emphasise the business relationship and eradicate any hint of the worker being a temporary employee of any kind. That, however, is far too deep a concept for the average agency to cope with, much less the poor dears Human Remains whjo would see a chunk of the empire disappear towards Procurement. Hence the need to be seen to be outside the AWR, rather than making sure people actually are outside the AWR.
As always, we are having to jump through non-existent hoops becuase the key players don't actually understand their own business.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View Post...much less the poor dears Human Remains whjo would see a chunk of the empire disappear towards Procurement...
Any, I watch with great disinterest to see how this develops.
* Except one of my current ones where HR really are the client. Even then, it went through procurement.Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!Comment
-
Originally posted by TestMangler View PostAgain, I 100% agree with the sentiment, although, I assume thinking on this will be as about as joined up as IR35 vs employee rights, which are totally different things but use the same tests in court to determine status.
However, I asked the OP if she was implying that 'opting out' (which i know can't be done) or declaring yourself outside AWR as you are in business on your own account, can be detrimental as she claimed it would be 'avoidance'.
None of what you've posted above explains the OPs initial assertion. That is what i'm seeking clarification of.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment