24 month rule - This is different!

[dx4100]

EDIT: Oh I give up

[LondonManc]

You haven't read the quoted example have you? Thats plainly obvious.

Can I suggest you do that rather than concentrating of comedic quips? Then you might see there is a discrepancy here....

17 + 3 - all good so far.
As soon as you get offered the 6 and have an intention of taking it, it's up for grabs.

That's plainly obvious.

[psychocandy]

The rule starts when the contract starts....

So he starts off doing 17 months... The timer is ticking
He does 3 months for same client at different site as part of this contract... Timer is still ticking on site A...
Back to original site for 6 months and BANG he is now over...

Normally you would go to a different client and a new contract and you would be fine to come back and work. But because its the same client and contract its not allowed.

True. The difference in this example is its the same contract in effect. Like you said, he goes away then comes back. Different to client X at location A, then client Y at location B, then client Z at location A?

Seems to make sense what you are saying but its not clear at all I dont think.

[teapot418]

If you were doing 4 days a week, you wouldn't expect to get an extra few months at the end because you hadn't been there every day - you've still been there > 40% of the time. The logic here is no different. The end date of the time in the location is > 24 months after the start of the time in the location. So you have to assess whether, over the 24 months leading up to the end of the contract you've spent > 40% of your time there.

[psychocandy]

17 + 3 - all good so far.
As soon as you get offered the 6 and have an intention of taking it, it's up for grabs.

That's plainly obvious.

Up for grabs as in not allowed in your opinion? BUT still less than 2 years at location???

[LondonManc]

Up for grabs as in not allowed in your opinion? BUT still less than 2 years at location???

An anomaly, for sure. From a non-accountant point of view, I can see why either argument could be used. The 17+3 are a given for claiming but then after that, I can understand why an accountant would give either direction. Is it any different to working in, say, Nottingham for 20 months, Newcastle for 6 months with A.N. Other client then back in Nottingham?

[dx4100]

ignore

[missinggreenfields]

I think it's wrong - following the logic of the last sentence, everyone should stop claiming after 9.6 months in the same place (40% of 24months)

I agree - he hasn't spent 24 months in the same location, so I'm struggling to see how he can breach the 24 month rule.

When he hits (or knows that he will hit) 24 months, then you look back and see what has happened, but until that time I don't think it's an issue.

[missinggreenfields]

An anomaly, for sure. From a non-accountant point of view, I can see why either argument could be used. The 17+3 are a given for claiming but then after that, I can understand why an accountant would give either direction. Is it any different to working in, say, Nottingham for 20 months, Newcastle for 6 months with A.N. Other client then back in Nottingham?

It depends how long you are back in Nottingham for. If it was >= 4 months, then you would obviously breach the 24 months and so would have to calculate how much time you've spent there.

But in the example given, Anders only spends 23 months in the location, so I'm not sure how that could be argued to be anything other than a temporary location.

[malvolio]

Its because its the same client....

The 24 month rule starts when the first contract starts....

17 + 3 + 6 = 26 months ago

17 allowed as its under 24 month
3 allowed has it is a new site
6 not allowed as he is now expecting to do more than 24 months from the start of the original contract at the site so he is going to breach 24 months.

It makes sense

Correct. And what I have bene saying all along. Heigh ho...