Client / Agency contract -- missing MyCo name !!

[lawspeed]

Party to Contract

If I could just step in briefly here - there is an important difference between simply being named (whether as an individual or limited company) in the agency-client contract or actually being made a party to that contract (i.e. with rights and obligations between you as an individual to that client).

If you are made a party, as an individual, and you have obligations to the client itself to perform the work then this has serious repercussions to IR35 status as you are committing to provide a personal service.

Merely being named in that contract is not a significant problem although it would certainly be preferable for your limited company name to be used rather than your personal name.

[Chugnut]

This has been the ridiculous position for ages. How on earth are you supposed to have any confidence in your contract?

1/ Have a well worded and insured contract? Check.

2/ Ensure working practices reflect it? Check.

3/ Have access to upper level contract even though client categorically denies any employee-employer relationship? Err... Big Brother will get back to you.

Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to be that all adhereance to 1/ and 2/ are totally negated by anything contained within 3/. I would expect my legal representative (and any judge considered worthy of practice) to overthrow any such claim of disguised employment as completely unfair due to circumstances totally outside mine and my company's control. Jumping through hoops anyone?

Never mind, eh? Happy Christmas.


Chug.

[Billy Pilgrim]

If I could just step in briefly here - there is an important difference between simply being named (whether as an individual or limited company) in the agency-client contract or actually being made a party to that contract (i.e. with rights and obligations between you as an individual to that client).

If you are made a party, as an individual, and you have obligations to the client itself to perform the work then this has serious repercussions to IR35 status as you are committing to provide a personal service.

Merely being named in that contract is not a significant problem although it would certainly be preferable for your limited company name to be used rather than your personal name.

So I may have rights with the end client then ? What rights ? Should the end client be even more worried than I am about the contract ?

But the crazy thing it - I am a party to the contract - ME not myco - BUT I am allowed to provide suitable substitutes.....it goes out of its way in terms of MOO.....this is an excerpt form the agency/client contract...from the "Personnel" section..

"The Consultant may send a substitute to perform the Services.
However the Client may reject the substitute if it is reasonably satisfied
that the Substitute does not posses the necessary skills, qualifications
and expertise required. Where a substitute is sent the Consultant will
remain responsible for making all payments to the substitute, such
other persons as are approved in writing by the Client (such approval not
to be unreasonably withheld or delayed)
The Client recognises that the Consultant undertakes the Services in
the capacity of its Personnel who will use their own initiative as to the
technical manner in which the Services are provided
The Client is not obliged to offer the Consultant or the Personnel any
work and the Consultant and Personnel are not obliged to accept any
work that may be offered, save for the work agreed under this contract
for services. No party wishes to create or imply any mutuality of
obligations whatsoever either in the course of or between any
performance of the Services or during any notice period. The Client is
not obliged to pay the Consultant at any time when no work is
available during this agreement"

I am getting conflicting evidence from all over the place now - head is spinning !!

Cheers