Not Happy with Entire Contract Terms

[neilmcl]

I recently got a new contract, after a fair while on the bench, via an outfit known as Lucid Support Services Ltd, I know, I hadn't heard of them either, and they've emailed the contract over and frankly the whole thing stinks.

It totally reads like an agency-employee contract with commitments on the Supplier (MyCo Ltd) to supply references, qualification evidence, proof of ID etc, as well as a whole big section regarding control over the consultant and obligations. There was even on part that states that the Consultant (me) shall undertake training and such services as required by the agency or client and there's also a holidays & abscences section where it mentions doctor certificates for illness etc. There's absolutely no substitute clause and the schedule doesn't go into any detail regarding the services required.

The contract is also a specific Opt-Out one with the opt-out included as part of its terms rather than a separate sign-off, I must point out that I was never asked to opt-out prior to the interview. In all the many years I've been contracting this has got to be one of the worst agency/ltd co. contracts I've come across.

What should be my approach to getting the contract changed and are they likely to budge?

[The Wikir Man]

You can but try - explain that you cannot sign a contract like that, because it is so blatantly IR35 unfriendly.

Send it off for review, or rewrite it yourself if you are confident / good enough to do it - sort out exactly what you need to change and then negotiate to get it changed.

It's up to you whether you really want to take the role or not, at the end of the day,if they are not amenable to it.

[cojak]

Sounds like an agency that thinks it's a consultancy and wants to 'employ' consultants (contractors really guys..) using the contract route to do it.

So you have all of the obligations with none of the benefits of permiedom.

Change it and negotiate (you must have other contracts that you've been happy with to use as templates).

[neilmcl]

I might send ikt off for a proper review. Which of the contract review sites would you guys recommend - Abbey Tax, Bauer & Cottrell, etc?

[expat]

Pardon me, but can they require training that you have to pay for? I have never seen an employee subject to that.

[cojak]

True, I haven't either - what if they want you to go on courses that costs £000's?

The OP didn't say one way or another...

[zedAccounts]

Some agencies have a non-friendly IR35 contract and a friendly IR35 contract. You were probably sent the former. As they clearly want to hire you you are in a strong position to get the changes you want. I nearly always demand a few tweaks to contracts and agencies usually comply.

ZED.

[neilmcl]

Panic over, well hopefully. I've just been in touch with the Agent who said they have different versions of the contract and they will send me out a more IR35 friendly version and if I have any more changes they would happy to look at it. We shall see.

One thing I did find interesting is their argument for sending out a specific opt-out contract without having a separate opt-in/opt-out agreement prior to the interview is that this is client driven, ie, the client has advised that they only want suppliers/consultants who have opted out. Surely this can't be legal.

[NotAllThere]

Sounds somewhat testicular to me. Opt out doesn't have anything to do with the client. It's entirely an agency/contractor matter. Though maybe the client really means wants a non-IR35 contract, as that will protect them against employment claims.

[The Wikir Man]

One thing I did find interesting is their argument for sending out a specific opt-out contract without having a separate opt-in/opt-out agreement prior to the interview is that this is client driven, ie, the client has advised that they only want suppliers/consultants who have opted out. Surely this can't be legal.

Sounds like Computer People / Ajilon to me.

Sign it and know you are opted in if you need to.