Stipulation on the work I am doing during my contract.

[rosshuts]

Dear Fellow Contractors.

I wonder if you can help me, I am a IT Contractor working for a local authority in the South West. My current contract (which is running from Jan 2018 to March 2018) and my renewal contract (April 2018 to October 2018) has a defined scope or deliverable based on a Citrix Migration and Supported the old Citrix platform whilst the migration work is complete.

In my previous renewals with this authority the scope wasn't so black and white in that it did have other duties and one important one being any other duties that are deemed reasonable by the customer.

I am getting a little despondent at the moment as I am NOT doing any real Citrix based duties including your standard BAU calls around the old environment. As it stands the building of new platform is on hold for various reasons which I do understand and may take some time.

I guess my predicament is that although I am still doing IT work although not related to the Citrix technologies that I love and want/trying to specialize in, I am working on patching of servers that are not related to any Citrix platforms either new or current/old and basically I literally didn't "sign up for this"....

Where exactly do I stand, I am tempted to call the agency that arranged this contract and the renewals but I don't really want to affect the "status quo" and rock the boat.

Also to be very clear, I am not wanting to sound like a contractor diva and seems to be throwing his toys out of the pram because I am not getting his own way. I appreciate the contract and the money etc. but I just feel I am not getting any benefits from the tasks am I working on especially when I am contracted to deliver a new Citrix VDI platform and migrate users to it..

Has anyone been in this scenario before, I have been contracting for over 4 years now and am I just been selfish and should just "suck it up" and get on with the contract regardless as a job is a job at the end of the day?

Any help would be greatly appreciated and go easy especially as this is my first time posting....

Regards,

Rosshuts...

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I'm assuming this is within IR35 - is the rate worth it?

[rosshuts]

That's a good point and should have mentioned that. The contract is outside of IR35 which is something I am grateful for and the rate is OK, could probably get another £50 per day if I left for another contract that either was or wasn't Citrix related contract.

[northernladuk]

any other duties that are deemed reasonable by the customer.

I don't like that at all. I've had that in permie contracts as well.

Have you had the contract checked for IR35? You could do with it doing again and with working practices included as well. You just sound like part and parcel now, well under D&C.

P. S. Its not a job.

[rosshuts]

I literally had the contract checked for IR35 last week as I am getting increasingly concerned and was still classed as "outside" IR35. The general attitude from the agency is what's the problem, I have a long contract renewal and so I should be happy. I don't think the client will be best pleased either, especially with the resources they have here which sort of explains why I am doing "other" duties.

I guess if I was doing decent/useful 3rd line related BAU work or just some other project related work I wouldn't mind. As it stands I am doing BAU (un-related to Citrix) as well as PSN compliance for the authority which requires a huge amount of remediation work. Of course all the PSN Compliance work is in no way related to what my contract scope dictates..

[NotAllThere]

... any other duties that are deemed reasonable by the customer.

That screams "contract of service"- a strong indicator of being inside IR35.

I gather this term is not in your new contract, which is why you get an IR35 pass. But since your customer is nonetheless behaving as thought the term is still there, you could easily get nobbled on working practices.

You either suck it up and put money aside in case of an IR35 investigation, or you tell the customer/agency that the work they're wanting you to do isn't in the scope of your current contract. If they want you to do it, then they must renegotiate your contract. Of course, they may just terminate you.

The general attitude from the agency is what's the problem,

Yes, and they've probably said that no-one else has ever complained. The thing is it's you who has the liability - and it's you who is being deskilled.

[northernladuk]

What was the result of the check? Did you tell the reviewer the actual situation and that you are doing any work the client asks in a BAU environment. Not sure how they can say outside to that.

[supersteamer]

The OP works for a local authority - public sector. So it’s not his/her responsibility to determine IR35 status. If the LA is treating him/her as a temp then surely that’s their problem and their potential penalties.

[northernladuk]

The OP works for a local authority - public sector. So it’s not his/her responsibility to determine IR35 status. If the LA is treating him/her as a temp then surely that’s their problem and their potential penalties.

I'd still be carrying my own diligence regardless. The results may also go towards sorting his situation out if it raises questions between their decision and the reality.

I'm sure Christa Ackroyd wishes she'd done her own diligence now rather than relying on someone else.

But yes you are right.

[Lance]

The OP works for a local authority - public sector. So it’s not his/her responsibility to determine IR35 status. If the LA is treating him/her as a temp then surely that’s their problem and their potential penalties.

I think this is correct.

However it’s not been tested in court yet.
Consider that the contract is outside but the contractor knows full well that the working practises means it should be inside but the client is responsible.
Does the contractor have a duty of care to inform the client that their determination is wrong? Or should the contractor insist in adhering to correct working practises?
If an IR35 case is brought, and lost, could the client argue that the contractor was wilfully working inside and that it’s not their responsibility?
I don’t know. It seems unlikely.