Eaglecliff & Shell - Mandatory 3 week holiday

[northernladuk]

Tell you what.. Let's move on.

Let us assume that your contract does say that and you have a case..

So where are we?

You have an inside IR35 contract
You want to sue them to prove your working practices are already inside.

So do you agree that you are now inside IR35? Are you going to pay the taxes you now owe or are you going to ignore that point?

Let's also assume you will..

So what next?

You attempt to sue the agent... remember it's not your client as mentioned in that article.

Your agent cancels your contract before 20th December.

Where does that leave you?

[mcltd]

the desperation games continue

Haha, I’m desperate to be right!!

Look, you got the following wrong:
Ir35
Gov website FTC being relevant

Multiple people disagreeing with you.

You even mentioned pop stars. Absolutely right there though. Same with footballers who have to have their whole contracts paid in full.

But that is *probably* not the type of contract you have, based on the types of contracts we contractors here have experience of (and yes, we haven’t seen your contract)

So the only way to find out for sure is to get advice. Speak to a lawyer, or maybe cheaper, QDOS or similar might give you an opinion.

Then you can come back and gloat and wave your cash about if you like.

Good luck!

I have head from a lawyer.

Shell / Eaglecliff are almost certainly in breach of contract law (only the Court can decide definitively).

The fact that so many people could not understand this point possibly means that people may have received bad advice on this forum.

If you received bad advice from one of these posters, please note my message to them:

• Just listing things doesn't actually prove anything.
• Excessive control by a client is a way for HMRC to reclassify contractors. You are denial if you think otherwise.
• Once a contractor is reclassified as inside IR35, the rules regarding fix term employees come into play. It doesn't matter how many times you avoid this reality, it remains.

As far as I am concerned, you all commenting recently are probably just the same person who operates under a range of misconceptions.

[Old Greg]

I have head from a lawyer.

Shell / Eaglecliff are almost certainly in breach of contract law (only the Court can decide definitively).

The fact that so many people could not understand this point possibly means that people may have received bad advice on this forum.

If you received bad advice from one of these posters, please note my message to them:

• Just listing things doesn't actually prove anything.
• Excessive control by a client is a way for HMRC to reclassify contractors. You are denial if you think otherwise.
• Once a contractor is reclassified as inside IR35, the rules regarding fix term employees come into play. It doesn't matter how many times you avoid this reality, it remains.

As far as I am concerned, you all commenting recently are probably just the same person who operates under a range of misconceptions.

You go, girl!

[northernladuk]

I have head from a lawyer.

Shell / Eaglecliff are almost certainly in breach of contract law (only the Court can decide definitively).

The fact that so many people could not understand this point possibly means that people may have received bad advice on this forum.

If you received bad advice from one of these posters, please note my message to them:

• Just listing things doesn't actually prove anything.
• Excessive control by a client is a way for HMRC to reclassify contractors. You are denial if you think otherwise.
• Once a contractor is reclassified as inside IR35, the rules regarding fix term employees come into play. It doesn't matter how many times you avoid this reality, it remains.

As far as I am concerned, you all commenting recently are probably just the same person who operates under a range of misconceptions.

Damn, that's me told

OG.. I need a hug.

Did I mention you've already re-classified yourself inside via your contract and your intended working practices?

[Old Greg]

Damn, that's me told

OG.. I need a hug.

Have you asked your accountant?

[TestMangler]

I have head from a lawyer.

Shell / Eaglecliff are almost certainly in breach of contract law (only the Court can decide definitively).

The fact that so many people could not understand this point possibly means that people may have received bad advice on this forum.

If you received bad advice from one of these posters, please note my message to them:

• Just listing things doesn't actually prove anything.
• Excessive control by a client is a way for HMRC to reclassify contractors. You are denial if you think otherwise.
• Once a contractor is reclassified as inside IR35, the rules regarding fix term employees come into play. It doesn't matter how many times you avoid this reality, it remains.

As far as I am concerned, you all commenting recently are probably just the same person who operates under a range of misconceptions.

<mod snip>

[northernladuk]

<mod snip>

[northernladyuk]

<mod snip>

[northernladuk]

Am a Judge. I am the law..

I actually did think TM meant me when he put that comment.

[mcltd]

and the award for Best Hijacking of a Thread goes to....

I don't think this thread is going anywhere I want to follow now. I am going to sign off on this thread.

I have enough to feel morally superior to Shell and Eaglecliff. I don't know if I will win in Court, or if this will even go to Court, but....

I thank you all for your comments, particularly to the poster who provided the link to the article.