• 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!

Invoking Substitution Clause

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Most contractors don't exercise the right to substitution so it relies on the other tests.
    I don't think HMRC and QDOS take this view, it is not whether you have excercised the right that counts, it is whether the right genuinely exists.

    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Oh and either of the parties can terminate the contract on that breach. In your case you simply point out you don't know which other clauses in the contract may be a sham.
    Sorry you lost me completely on the 2nd sentence!?
    This default font is sooooooooooooo boring and so are short usernames

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by MPwannadecentincome View Post

      Sorry you lost me completely on the 2nd sentence!?
      Generally if one clause in a contract is found not to be enforceable the offended party is suppose to ignore it if it has no impact how they carry out their services.

      However if that clause makes it impossible to carry out the contract e.g. as the offended party views it as a breach of trust, you can argue the contract is in dispute and both parties can agree to terminate the contract.
      "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by MPwannadecentincome View Post
        I don't think HMRC and QDOS take this view, it is not whether you have excercised the right that counts, it is whether the right genuinely exists.
        Correct but they are getting smart (arguable) about deciding with that right genuinely exists...

        This is an interesting article that explains why RoS isn't very strong. HMRC take the line most are unrealistic, particularly if an agent is involved... and to be fair they are probably right.

        IT contractors warned on IR35 substitution clauses :: Contractor UK

        Which is off the back of some a failed case of 20 people where the RoS was deemed a sham which was a key point of the loss.

        Sham contracts: Contractors were disguised employees, says appeal court :: Contractor UK

        They are not contractors as we we are though. I am not sure a load of people valeting cars really reflects our situation. Interesting non the less.

        This is back from 2009 so it's bit odd we still push RoS as one of the main three we need yet Kate C makes the point that RoS isn't that important.
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          #24
          I have done it, I subbed in a contractor with legal knowledge around some docs the programme required - it was timed at the same time as I wanted some time off, so I offered it as a way for them to get what they needed without any increase in costs.

          They agreed, work got done, they were happy, I was happy, other contractor was happy and as a lovely side effect I have a pretty cast iron IR35 get out for that gig now.

          Comment


            #25
            I too have substituted and sub-contracted work, but agree that it probably isn't that common. I suspect that is because most contractors don't even try it . I have no idea why.

            The thing I don't quite understand about clients who say that they won't accept a substitute (or contractors who think that they clients won't) is that:-

            If the original contractor doesn't accept a renewal or had rejected the gig at interview time, what would the client do? They would get somebody else in - the project wouldn't stop. In other words, they would accept a substitute. So, the issue is really whether they are happy with the substitutes put forward by the encumbent.

            Generally speaking, when interviewing, clients are looking for what they consider the best available person at the price who meets the minimum criteria. The proposed subbie may even be better than the original.


            Where there are credit and security checks to be made, i accept that it may not be worth the while for covering a couple of weeks break.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by fidot View Post
              I suspect that is because most contractors don't even try it . I have no idea why..
              Because most contractors don't know what they are doing.
              'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

              Comment


                #27
                Bought a lot of people in myself, got a new one in a month or two ago, now.
                Clients have always been quite happy for me to do this.

                They know I wouldn't bring in anyone that isn't good, as they know I don't suffer fools gladly.

                I know a number of people doing the same thing all in IB, where everyone says you wouldn't be able to sub people in.
                However, it should be noted, these are proven experts in their field, often industry known.
                The Chunt of Chunts.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                  Correct but they are getting smart (arguable) about deciding with that right genuinely exists...

                  This is an interesting article that explains why RoS isn't very strong. HMRC take the line most are unrealistic, particularly if an agent is involved... and to be fair they are probably right.

                  IT contractors warned on IR35 substitution clauses :: Contractor UK

                  Which is off the back of some a failed case of 20 people where the RoS was deemed a sham which was a key point of the loss.

                  Sham contracts: Contractors were disguised employees, says appeal court :: Contractor UK

                  They are not contractors as we we are though. I am not sure a load of people valeting cars really reflects our situation. Interesting non the less.

                  This is back from 2009 so it's bit odd we still push RoS as one of the main three we need yet Kate C makes the point that RoS isn't that important.
                  thanks for the links which I will digest :-)

                  In the meantime I found this on HMRC website Considering the evidence: ineffective or sham substitution clauses

                  However, the fact that a substitution clause is ineffective or a sham is merely an indicator that personal service is required. At best this would, as stated above, only be considered to be a minor pointer to employment.
                  This default font is sooooooooooooo boring and so are short usernames

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X