Bauer & Cottrell contract review - suggests I will never be outside IR35?!

[zippy.mini]

From everything that's been said by the OP, IMHO he would fall inside IR35 as he is working alongside and doing exactly the same job as the permanent staff under the same basic management controls - I am not sure that changing your lunch hour would count for very much in an IR35 investigation.

This is my point really. I don't know a single contractor in an infrastructure/support role that ISN'T in this situation. And yet until now I've not been inside with previous reviews. How does one get oneself outside IR35 if this is the current definition of inside?
i haven't just "changed my lunch hour" but that's beside the point - there are support guys out there working outside ir35 who have to be on site at specific times of the day to cover shifts - a few years ago, this too would not automatically put you inside (I've worked those shifts and have the contract reviews to prove it), but from what you say and what I was told yesterday, it would now?

[VectraMan]

This is my point really. I don't know a single contractor in an infrastructure/support role that ISN'T in this situation.

And software engineers, project managers, everybody really.

[zippy.mini]

And software engineers, project managers, everybody really.

Exactly...
I have emailed for clarification as I only had the conversation on the phone yesterday and would like it all in writing.

[AntonioDJCA]

I have all my contracts reviewed by B&C and have had great service.
Just to correct you, they will negotiate with the agency on their Contract Review package (what you would call their lowest?).

Strangely, you had to pay extra on the Gaurdian for them to negotiate but dont now.

b7C can only go on what the OP has told them. Im pretty sure they would only have said he \ she will always be inside IR35 if the working practices remain unchanged on every job.

After seeing Kate's response on here and noting that the case has not been closed yet, I must apologise for jumping to the conclusion that they only gave the OP some brief information over the phone (which is why I kept on saying it's just not enough) as his review. Sounds like they provide a comprehensive service (your statement seems to confirm this), so I am confident they will help OP get to the bottom of why they deem him to be inside and make reasonable recommendations based on that.

Look forward to hearing how this develops Zippy, and please remember that B&C are there to provide you with professional services, of which the outcome may not always be favourable (no one is happy when their accountant says you must pay VAT this month, but that shouldn't be a cause for going to a forum, same principal here). Before following this up it would be best discussed (and closed) with B&C as anything we say here would put pressure on them one way or another so not ideal to publicize before the case is closed.

[zippy.mini]

My intention for posting this was not to diss B&C, far from it. It was purely to discuss what I was told over the phone yesterday with others. To be honest, the person I spoke to over there really wanted to close the review there and then but I requested an idea of what I may be able to do to change the status and said I wanted a chance to try to make that change. She agreed.
But there are many contracts out there where the requested change cannot be made - ie any support role. The only option I was given I think, was to get clarification from the hiring manager that I am here to work on a specific project only. Whilst I can probably get this clarification in this instance (my contract doesn't mention a project currently, it just says services, but I am here because of a specific project), it doesn't change the fact that any support role where a contractor is brought in to temporarily bolster the workforce would automatically be deemed inside based on what I have been told.
And that is contrary to my previous understanding. It takes nothing else into account - MoO, RoS, insurances etc is all apparently irrelevant. Its due to direction and control because the manager has the right to say what work they want done. They may or may not have the right to decide how, where or when, but it seems that them having the right to say What, is enough! Don't managers say What needs doing in every contract?! I'm simply confused.com and wanted to discuss it.

I don't mind being inside on a particular contract, what I do mind is that it feels now like every contract I will ever get will probably be inside.

[AntonioDJCA]

My intention for posting this was not to diss B&C, far from it. It was purely to discuss what I was told over the phone yesterday with others. To be honest, the person I spoke to over there really wanted to close the review there and then but I requested an idea of what I may be able to do to change the status and said I wanted a chance to try to make that change. She agreed.
But there are many contracts out there where the requested change cannot be made - ie any support role. The only option I was given I think, was to get clarification from the hiring manager that I am here to work on a specific project only. Whilst I can probably get this clarification in this instance (my contract doesn't mention a project currently, it just says services, but I am here because of a specific project), it doesn't change the fact that any support role where a contractor is brought in to temporarily bolster the workforce would automatically be deemed inside based on what I have been told.
And that is contrary to my previous understanding. It takes nothing else into account - MoO, RoS, insurances etc is all apparently irrelevant. Its due to direction and control because the manager has the right to say what work they want done. They may or may not have the right to decide how, where or when, but it seems that them having the right to say What, is enough! Don't managers say What needs doing in every contract?! I'm simply confused.com and wanted to discuss it.

I don't mind being inside on a particular contract, what I do mind is that it feels now like every contract I will ever get will probably be inside.

A representative of your client (line manager) must tell a representative of your company (you) what they have hired your company (and it's representatives) to do. You can't just go on site and start guessing what you have to do, so there's must be more to this that would put you inside. Being told what the expected end result of your work needs to look like is not direction (control). Being told how to get to the end result is. As I say, we don't really have the full picture here so B&C will have the final word and then you can feed back anything you are not sure of in CUK (once you have attempted to clarify with B&C).

IR35, simplez (comparison website reference).

[Kate Cottrell]

Bauer & Cottrell Contract Review

Exactly...
I have emailed for clarification as I only had the conversation on the phone yesterday and would like it all in writing.

Hello zippy mini

I have just sent you an email setting out the detail of your case and the current position. I look forward to hearing from you on the outstanding points please.

Kate Cottrell
Bauer & Cottrell

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

This is my point really. I don't know a single contractor in an infrastructure/support role that ISN'T in this situation. And yet until now I've not been inside with previous reviews. How does one get oneself outside IR35 if this is the current definition of inside?
i haven't just "changed my lunch hour" but that's beside the point - there are support guys out there working outside ir35 who have to be on site at specific times of the day to cover shifts - a few years ago, this too would not automatically put you inside (I've worked those shifts and have the contract reviews to prove it), but from what you say and what I was told yesterday, it would now?

It all depends on whether or not the review was done purely on working practices or purely on the contract or a combination of both. A contract review alone may not be representative of the true IR35 position as some contracts are written in such a way that they'll pass a review.

[sociopath]

A representative of your client (line manager) must tell a representative of your company (you) what they have hired your company (and it's representatives) to do. You can't just go on site and start guessing what you have to do, so there's must be more to this that would put you inside. Being told what the expected end result of your work needs to look like is not direction (control). Being told how to get to the end result is. As I say, we don't really have the full picture here so B&C will have the final word and then you can feed back anything you are not sure of in CUK (once you have attempted to clarify with B&C).

IR35, simplez (comparison website reference).

Fair point. However the way the Ops post reads is that they have work other than a specific project to do and that work is not agreed up front before attending site.

[sociopath]

It all depends on whether or not the review was done purely on working practices or purely on the contract or a combination of both. A contract review alone may not be representative of the true IR35 position as some contracts are written in such a way that they'll pass a review.

You could consider an individual brought in to support a project. They will have specific requirements to deliver and project will have an end date. Then there is the individual brought in to support a clients central team with no specific project or end date (other than contract end date). The latter would be more difficult to argue is outside IR35.