Being forced onsite.

[Lance]

By working out an MSP contract. We are effectively employed to the agencies consultancy business and they take on the projects for the trust. So the fee payer becomes the consultancy.
That's how they have worked it so we don't come under the public sector off payroll rules that came in in 2017.

In actual fact we are just bodies supplied to the trust.

NLUK I will reply to your posts but on a phone is not easy so will do it when on the laptop tomorrow.

I take on your point about the strength of the arguments.
I am a PM, not it support. Not customer facing or patient facing.
We are not an acute trust so not dealing directly with covid however I also don't want to take the risk of having to travel into central London every day.

We have 80% of our trust wfh... Apart from IT, 100% of the corporate side is.
There is not justification to be onsite other than (and I quote the it director):
I'm from the North, if I can travel in everyday at 60...so can everyone else.

I don't see why I need to risk myself unnecessarily.

Yes it's a personal decision, one I, as a contractor and Independant entity am entitled to.



Sent from my LYA-L09 using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

So you’re not working for a trust?
Or are you?
Who is in control? The NHS manager or the consultancy?

If the consultancy then IR35 is your problem at the moment.

[MonkeysUncle]

On paper the consultancy... In practice the trust.
As said... Its just a way they think they can circumvent the off payroll rules.
I have seen it before a few times.
If in practice it was actually like that then yes ir35 is on me till next year but its not.
It's still very much an agent supplied contractors to a trust.
They just think that by doing this way it's all OK.

So you’re not working for a trust?
Or are you?
Who is in control? The NHS manager or the consultancy?

If the consultancy then IR35 is your problem at the moment.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

[Lance]

On paper the consultancy... In practice the trust.
As said... Its just a way they think they can circumvent the off payroll rules.
I have seen it before a few times.
If in practice it was actually like that then yes ir35 is on me till next year but its not.
It's still very much an agent supplied contractors to a trust.
They just think that by doing this way it's all OK.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

Gotcha. Keep any evidence of the trust doing this. If you get investigated and you can prove the end client was the trust then you’re in the clear.
I’m not surprised this is being tried, but I would be surprised if it was common. Most PS legal departments should realise this is a sham.

[eek]

Gotcha. Keep any evidence of the trust doing this. If you get investigated and you can prove the end client was the trust then you’re in the clear.
I’m not surprised this is being tried, but I would be surprised if it was common. Most PS legal departments should realise this is a sham.

Most PS legal departments won't grasp the fact they are liable for the unpaid tax. I suspect if you found the finance director and had a quick chat he would be terrified

[Lance]

Most PS legal departments won't grasp the fact they are liable for the unpaid tax. I suspect if you found the finance director and had a quick chat he would be terrified

I said ‘should’

[malvolio]

By working out an MSP contract. We are effectively employed to the agencies consultancy business and they take on the projects for the trust. So the fee payer becomes the consultancy.
That's how they have worked it so we don't come under the public sector off payroll rules that came in in 2017.

In actual fact we are just bodies supplied to the trust.

NLUK I will reply to your posts but on a phone is not easy so will do it when on the laptop tomorrow.

I take on your point about the strength of the arguments.
I am a PM, not it support. Not customer facing or patient facing.
We are not an acute trust so not dealing directly with covid however I also don't want to take the risk of having to travel into central London every day.

We have 80% of our trust wfh... Apart from IT, 100% of the corporate side is.
There is not justification to be onsite other than (and I quote the it director):
I'm from the North, if I can travel in everyday at 60...so can everyone else.

I don't see why I need to risk myself unnecessarily.

Yes it's a personal decision, one I, as a contractor and Independant entity am entitled to.



Sent from my LYA-L09 using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

"Bodies supplied to a client" are not outside IR35. You're only outside if you are working on a discrete turnkey project that is delivered in its entirety to the end client on completion (and even then you may be considered to be inside wrt the consultancy).

From what you've said to date, you don't qualify.

[Scruff]

This might be of interest...

How Do I Tell My Boss I Don’t Want to Work in the Office? - The New York Times

[northernladuk]

This might be of interest...

How Do I Tell My Boss I Don’t Want to Work in the Office? - The New York Times

It would if he was an employee..

[MonkeysUncle]

In the middle of a lockdown that is in place to keep the NHS from breaking having IT on site would be one of those beyond the ordinary to keep an overburded system working. It is arguable but the enchanced support isn't an unreasonable position. This is an example of where where I think you need to not let your personal desires cloud the business judgement as I mentioned.

As a PM, I am not IT Support. I understand the need for IT support to be onsite to keep things going however as mentioned I am not customer or patient facing so there is no need for me to be onsite,

Fair enough... So you won't go on site. I think this is the core of your negotiations. I doubt waving contracts around will really help much to be honest. They'll either let you or they won't and I can't believe a clause in a contract will change that.

Point taken

Erm, no. That statement is wrong IMO. Clients can dictate conditions without it affecting your status, for example, secure sites, above and beyond situations and then there is professional courtesy of attending sites when asked to. It isn't much of an IR35 issue in itself.

Agreed, if the work itself irequires me to be onsite, which it doesnt. I have asked for a task list/justification of why I need to be onsite for the next month and the director has not provided anything. He prefers his entire department to be onsite. Its an old school mentality of if you I cant see you in the office, I dont know if you are working or not. This, for me then comes under the Control aspect of SDC

What does the contract actually say about working location?

Nothing.

He isn't integrating you. He's asking everyone in because there is an emergency situation. Again, you have an solution and are desperately trying to find something to justify it. This isn't it.

We have been in an emergency situation since May, and I have been able to wfh since May effectively as and when needed (usually do 2/3 days onsite and the remainder wfh). This is only a change to say I will be wfh 5 days.

Breach? Not really and you have to prove it. Which is going to be very expensive. There won't be any penalties, they'll ask you to leave, either with a period of handover or on the spot. End of. Everything else is too costly to prove.

Points taken above, I say breach because of the clause mentioned outlining I wont be under the control of the Hirer, and this sounds very much like control

I have a call booked in today. Will see how it goes.

[eek]

I have a call booked in today. Will see how it goes.

Good luck with your forthcoming job hunt...