contract terminated without notice

[TheFaQQer]

The difference in our approaches is you assume the OP knows all these points you are making. I do not.

Indeed, but turning every thread into an IR35 discussion doesn't help the OP in this case.

[northernladuk]

Indeed, but turning every thread into an IR35 discussion doesn't help the OP in this case.

Erm, technically I'm not. I am pointing out the IR35 implications in one post. Someone else then starts on a discussion about it which always ends up with us both talking about the same thing from a different angle.

And it's an advice forum no? If he is doing something wrong or he is unaware of and someone points it out haven't we helped the OP with two issues, one he brought up and another he wasn't aware of? Maybe we should lock posts after the first correct reponse i.e. post 2 and close the topic so we don't discuss any issues the OP has not related to his post.

... but, as it bothers people I'll not post in this thread again.

[Unix]

Indeed, but turning every thread into an IR35 discussion doesn't help the OP in this case.

NLUK works for HMRC, thought all the regulars knew that by now?

[dannywzman]

Indeed, but turning every thread into an IR35 discussion doesn't help the OP in this case.

Indeed. I've been reading some of the forums here lately and all this guy seems to go on about is IR35. It is like some fetish of his.

[northernladuk]

Indeed. I've been reading some of the forums here lately and all this guy seems to go on about is IR35. It is like some fetish of his.

You seemed to be happy to come on and get some free advice for absolutely nothing? Looking at your original question I can't help think you have benefited from many of the advice in other threads not related to yours. How about contributing and then you can have a pop hey?

EDIT : Interestingly I see I took the time to give some advice on your thread. And now you feel the need to have a go? <Insert winker icon here>

[dannywzman]

... but, as it bothers people I'll not post in this thread again.

..

[dannywzman]

EDIT : Interestingly I see I took the time to give some advice on your thread. And now you feel the need to have a go? <Insert winker icon here>

Yes where again you went off on IR35 which I don't really care about or noone in this thread really cares about to be honest.

All you want to do it seems on these forums is just remind everyone that contracting is a completely different world to permanent and any contractor who does anything similar to a permanent employee should be reminded that contract is a world completely different and mysterious to permanent employment.

It's not the case in the real world to be honest. Most the contractors I work with I don't really see any difference to the permanent staff. In fact in my dept I'm not fully sure of all who are contractors or who are internal. We all have managers to report to etc.

People are not wasting their time thinking continuously about IR35.

[CheeseSlice]

You could always ask clientco what the problem was. If there 'was' a problem with your work, then offer to fix the mistake for FREE.

May not get you your contract back, but you will be doing the right thing and would restore some pride - if they're genuine about your performance.

That would also be pretty good for keeping the IR35 police away from that contract.

[Zero Liability]

So you believe that if you work on multiple projects and they aren't named projects on the contract, then this indicates that the contractor is inside IR35?

There is a HUGE difference between having the role details in the contract (which is fairly easy to understand) and the legalese of the actual contract - indeed, when I had a similar contract checked by Qdos they picked up and corrected the IR35 bits but did not comment on the part that would have allowed the consultancy to terminate because they were "unsatisfied".

And getting terminated for no reason, with no notice, and no pay off kind of blows the disguised employee argument out of the water.

It's funny that. The reviewer who passed mine also remained silent on that clause, which the consultancy has utilised several times during my contract with bad performers/difficult contractors after a warning or two, sometimes none. I pointed it out to him and he remarked it's a pointer against it being disguised employment and towards lack of MoO, as it would be impossible to do that with a permie except for gross misconduct. I would think it is worth remarking on such a clause in a review.

[TheFaQQer]

It's funny that. The reviewer who passed mine also remained silent on that clause, which the consultancy has utilised several times during my contract with bad performers/difficult contractors after a warning or two, sometimes none. I pointed it out to him and he remarked it's a pointer against it being disguised employment and towards lack of MoO, as it would be impossible to do that with a permie except for gross misconduct. I would think it is worth remarking on such a clause in a review.

I guess that people are only looking to tell you where there is a problem. If I'd considered it more, then you can see it as a good pointer.

Anyway, it doesn't help the OP much, apart from having that defence if there was ever any investigation.