Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?

[craig1]

They've had "legal advice", so they won't be backing down any time soon.

I'm just a bit nervous about the whole PAYE thing... what if they're right?! Although I suspect this is exactly what they want me to think...

Is their legal advice from a qualified solicitor or their internal "legal advisor" who barely scraped a C in their A-Level Law course?

I had a strong disagreement with the Senior Legal Officer of one of the UK's largest agencies about whether a LLP was a limited liability organisation, even though it has Limited Liability in the actual name Limited Liability Partnership. He refused to back down stating that I was trying to con them because a LLP can never be limited liability and that he was minded to report me to Companies House for fraudulently claiming such protection. I invited him to do so but strangely he didn't follow through with it. I also asked him on what basis he was providing legal advice and if he was a qualified solicitor, he declined to answer.

[Contreras]

The meaning of 'control' within the conduct regs is entirely different to the meaning of 'Direction and Control' within IR35 and the HMRC Employment Status Manual.

Unfortunately there are those even within the contracting industry that view the two as the same and infer from the conduct regs that if you do not opt out, even your subbies are subject to control.

Yep. It's a twisted mess of lies, mis-information and FUD.

The conduct regs apply precisely *because* of the 'control' element and opting in/out does not affect that.

If anything, by opting out you accept that the conduct regs. apply and therefore that 'control' as defined by the regs. does exist.

[malvolio]

Yep. It's a twisted mess of lies, mis-information and FUD.

The conduct regs apply precisely *because* of the 'control' element and opting in/out does not affect that.

If anything, by opting out you accept that the conduct regs. apply and therefore that 'control' as defined by the regs. does exist.

Never really understood that argument, but it does make sense...

It's a bit of a logic bomb though, since the Regs apply to us because of how we work and because the Regs do not exclude us like they were meant to do, so you're in scope if you don't opt out, you're in scope if you do opt out and you're in scope if you totally ignore them.

Anyway, there's a new version out soon. I'm not optimistic it will resolve the issue in the slightest, but at least we can tell the agencies to go find a new excuse.

[tractor]

Never really understood that argument, but it does make sense...

It's a bit of a logic bomb though, since the Regs apply to us because of how we work and because the Regs do not exclude us like they were meant to do, so you're in scope if you don't opt out, you're in scope if you do opt out and you're in scope if you totally ignore them.

Anyway, there's a new version out soon. I'm not optimistic it will resolve the issue in the slightest, but at least we can tell the agencies to go find a new excuse.

There may be a new version out after they reconsult, draft legislate, then if they choose not to shelve it, put it through Parliament and the Lords. That is most unlikely to be 'soon'. In any event they have stated that the opt out will remain, probably in its' current form.

And remember next year is an election year, so this is really likely to be at the top of the 'to do' list not.

[malvolio]

There may be a new version out after they reconsult, draft legislate, then if they choose not to shelve it, put it through Parliament and the Lords. That is most unlikely to be 'soon'. In any event they have stated that the opt out will remain, probably in its' current form.

And remember next year is an election year, so this is really likely to be at the top of the 'to do' list not.

Well,yeah, it's all hopeless and we may as well retire now and save all the bother of trying to change things...

[craig1]

Well,yeah, it's all hopeless and we may as well retire now and save all the bother of trying to change things...

There's always those nice chappies often based on the IoM who can completely solve your IR35 issues.

[tractor]

...

Well,yeah, it's all hopeless and we may as well retire now and save all the bother of trying to change things...

That's not what I said at all. But hanging on a government 'soon' doesn't cut it either.

BTW the only way it will change is by re-regulating the lying, spinning agents and including a code of conduct to which they are bound.

[malvolio]

That's not what I said at all. But hanging on a government 'soon' doesn't cut it either.

BTW the only way it will change is by re-regulating the lying, spinning agents and including a code of conduct to which they are bound.

There is one, from both REC and APSCo. Excellent examples of chocolate teapots.

As for regulating them, isn't that what the Agency Conduct Regulations are for?

[tractor]

...

There is one, from both REC and APSCo. Excellent examples of chocolate teapots.

As for regulating them, isn't that what the Agency Conduct Regulations are for?

There are many agents that are not members of either. When was the last example of REC or APSCO taking up the contractor baton? What was the result?

Yes, but with no one to police them what is the point; which also begs the question, what is the point of a refresh?

Agency licensing needs to come back and with some teeth.

In short there is no protection against agents doing exactly what they want!

[craig1]

There are many agents that are not members of either. When was the last example of REC or APSCO taking up the contractor baton? What was the result?

Yes, but with no one to police them what is the point; which also begs the question, what is the point of a refresh?

Agency licensing needs to come back and with some teeth.

In short there is no protection against agents doing exactly what they want!

You could have bulletproof regulations with substantial penalties and firm enforcement but if contractors can be bullied off-the-record to opt out then they're still irrelevant. All that would happen is that contractors would be asked if they wanted to opt out with subtle hints that opted-out contractors would get preference and job-hungry people will happily sign the document. Just remove the opt-out entirely and make it a catch-all that if you get work through an intermediary caught by the regulations then you're also caught.