My first time doing anything through an agency in ages. Contract looked really good to me but it has come back as a fail from QDOS on three points:
1. The description of services in the schedule is a bit vague. Agency claimed this was better for IR35 (a new one to me). I've actually already flagged myself and the agency is happy for a more specific description of the services to be provided and the project I'm working on to be used.
2. "Clause 2.5(a) - This clause is damaging with regards to IR35 as it is binding the individual
Representative to the services. This could suggest that the personal service of the individual are
required to fulfil the obligations of the contract. If the clause is there for commercial purposes only (i.e,
to protect the commercial interests of the client) then this would be acceptable from an IR35
perspective. Please seek confirmation from the agency in relation to this."
3. Clause 6.9 – The right to provide a substitute is one of the most important tests in determining IR35
status. It is therefore crucial there is a strong clause within the contract to reflect the fact that the
contractor can supply a substitute. This clause should be improved upon by removing the words,
“consent” and replacing with ‘agreement’ - as the word ‘consent’ weakens this clause and suggests
that the provision of a substitute could be at the discretion of the Client or Employment Business. It is
also rather critical that a substitute is paid for by the contractor and the clause should be elaborated
upon to explicitly state that the contractor's company would be responsible for all costs associated in
providing a substitute.
So looking at 2.5(a), it is:
Personally I don't think "personal service" is the be all and end all of IR35, especially if you're covered on mutuality of obligation and direction and control (the contract is particularly good IMO on D&C, QDOS haven't raised it and I'll be working remotely). It might be simplest to get them to change this to "Representative" instead of "Named Representative", as whilst the latter refers to me directly, the former refers to me "or any other suitable alternate or additional personnel provided by the Supplier to perform any part or all of the Services on its behalf".
And 6.9, the RoS clause:
Getting them to add a clause making it clear I'm responsible for all costs seems fine, but I'm not really following QDOS' logic here that the word "agreement" is somehow better than "consent". The clause seems reasonably unfettered to me - my reading of it is that consent will be given as long as the substitute is qualified.
Any suggestions? I think QDOS's determination of "FAIL - inside IR35" is a bit dramatic.
1. The description of services in the schedule is a bit vague. Agency claimed this was better for IR35 (a new one to me). I've actually already flagged myself and the agency is happy for a more specific description of the services to be provided and the project I'm working on to be used.
2. "Clause 2.5(a) - This clause is damaging with regards to IR35 as it is binding the individual
Representative to the services. This could suggest that the personal service of the individual are
required to fulfil the obligations of the contract. If the clause is there for commercial purposes only (i.e,
to protect the commercial interests of the client) then this would be acceptable from an IR35
perspective. Please seek confirmation from the agency in relation to this."
3. Clause 6.9 – The right to provide a substitute is one of the most important tests in determining IR35
status. It is therefore crucial there is a strong clause within the contract to reflect the fact that the
contractor can supply a substitute. This clause should be improved upon by removing the words,
“consent” and replacing with ‘agreement’ - as the word ‘consent’ weakens this clause and suggests
that the provision of a substitute could be at the discretion of the Client or Employment Business. It is
also rather critical that a substitute is paid for by the contractor and the clause should be elaborated
upon to explicitly state that the contractor's company would be responsible for all costs associated in
providing a substitute.
So looking at 2.5(a), it is:
2.5 it is authorised as agent on behalf of each Representative, to bind the Named Representative to this clause and any Representative to clauses 3, 6.3 and 6.5 but not further or otherwise and in accepting this agreement it agrees on behalf of the Named Representative during and after this agreement
(a) that if a Guarantee is applicable in the event of breach of this agreement by the Supplier the Named Representative shall, upon receipt of a written request by [agency name], perform or discharge the obligations of the Supplier due under or arising from this agreement, and
(a) that if a Guarantee is applicable in the event of breach of this agreement by the Supplier the Named Representative shall, upon receipt of a written request by [agency name], perform or discharge the obligations of the Supplier due under or arising from this agreement, and
And 6.9, the RoS clause:
If a person other than the Named Representative is to perform any part or all of the Services on behalf of the Supplier whether by way of sub-contract or otherwise, the Supplier may use such person provided only that it has the prior written consent of [agency name] which consent will not be withheld in the case of a suitably qualified person in respect of whom the Supplier has given warranties identical to those contained in clause 2 other than clause 2.5. The Supplier may not in those circumstances charge for any agreed lead in time.
Any suggestions? I think QDOS's determination of "FAIL - inside IR35" is a bit dramatic.
Comment