A strange contract clause ??

**mailmannz** · 16 April 2005, 23:19

They are trying to get you to opt out of the new agency regulations.

Get them to remove the clause and tell them you are not opting out.

Mailman

**terotech** · 18 April 2005, 10:15

But my understanding is that opting out is a pointer to being outside of IR35 (as your business is taking a risk) whereas by opting in *could be* deemed to be within IR35.

Rgds,
D

edited: sorry, I meant to say *could be* instead of *will be*

**Ardesco** · 18 April 2005, 13:55

.....

The actual contract has very little to do with classifying you as IR35 or not, the IR will ignore your contract and look at your actual working situation so you may as well leave it in to give yourself some protection from unscrupulous agents. There is no definitive inside or outside IR35 contract only a list of indicators.

If you opt out it means that the agents don't have to check up your references and verify that you haven't lied in your CV, and they also don't have to pay you within a reasonable time, they could hang onto your cash for a few months and there is very little you can do.

I would get the clause taken out of the contract if I were you.

**Incubus** · 19 April 2005, 11:15

Hi,

I've just secured a new contract and the agency have asked me whether I want to opt-in or opt-out of regulations...

There seems to be 2 for 'opt-in' and 1 for 'opt-out' in this thread.

Can anyone else offer their opinion?

Cheers,

Kev

**Ardesco** · 19 April 2005, 13:00

Never Opt Out Unless...

The only way I would ever consider opting out is if I was offered a higher rate, and I knew the agency well enough to know that they weren't going to mess me about when it came to paying me my money.

**planetit** · 19 April 2005, 14:04

Re: Never Opt Out Unless...

As I understand it (and I’m no expert), if you are going to opt out, you must do so before they have introduced you to the client. As such it cannot form part of the contract. So even if you sign the contract with this clause in it you will not be opted out.

The problem, she is sol-ved

**Ardesco** · 19 April 2005, 14:38

Yes but..

Thats the general idea, although I had an agent badger me for a few days to opt out saying it would make me outside IR35 whereas I would be within IR35 if I didn't (which is blatently wrong anyway, and opt out clause is not going to make much difference either way, as I understand it the best clause is a substitution clause that you actually use) and he was quite happy to backdate the paperwork to do me a favour. >:

I made sure I was opted in as I had already had the interview and agreed to accept the contract and all of a sudden the agency didn't look to be as trustworthy as it had at first appeared to be. I don't want to be waiting a few months for my money as I have bills to pay and I really don't want the hassle of dragging an agency through the courts to try and get it, its unlikely that it would come to that but you never know.....

**mailmannz** · 20 April 2005, 10:21

Re: Yes but..

The problem is if you leave that clause in, and we are all in agreement that its a powerless clause, that the agency will still refer to it if they with hold money from you.

Better to have the clause removed now than to have to deal with it at some point down the line when you arent being paid by the agency.

Regards

Mailman

**Incubus** · 21 April 2005, 11:17

Re: Yes but..

Thanks for all the replies.

In the end I got copies of both contracts and did a compare.

The main differences were the possibility of them holding payment until they'd been paid, and also a restriction clause if I opted out.

Needless to say, I've opted in.

Cheers guys,

Kev

A strange contract clause ??