• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Substitution clause being argued in my SDS appeal

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    A minor point of detail though - the test is not an "unfettered right", rather a "not unreasonably fettered" right.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
      A minor point of detail though - the test is not an "unfettered right", rather a "not unreasonably fettered" right.
      But the question in CEST is:
      “Has the worker ever sent a substitute to do this work?”
      A substitute is someone the worker sends in their place to do their role.

      "Yes, you accepted them"
      "Yes, but you did not accept them"
      "No, it has not happened"

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by pr1 View Post

        But the question in CEST is:
        “Has the worker ever sent a substitute to do this work?”
        A substitute is someone the worker sends in their place to do their role.

        "Yes, you accepted them"
        "Yes, but you did not accept them"
        "No, it has not happened"
        So...?

        Does anyone think that CEST reflects case law on any major aspect (RoS, MoO, D&C)?

        The bigger picture for the OP is that the client is clued-up and thinks the OP is inside. That the client read the CEST guidance and doesn't believe that the previous "substitutions" were valid ones that would warrant a "Yes" answer is neither here nor there in the big picture. CEST is a mere tool to achieve what the client wants and believes.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

          So...?

          Does anyone think that CEST reflects case law on any major aspect (RoS, MoO, D&C)?

          The bigger picture for the OP is that the client is clued-up and thinks the OP is inside. That the client read the CEST guidance and doesn't believe that the previous "substitutions" were valid ones that would warrant a "Yes" answer is neither here nor there in the big picture. CEST is a mere tool to achieve what the client wants and believes.
          So... from the information OP has provided, answering anything other than "Yes, you accepted them" to the question "Has the worker ever sent a substitute to do this work?" would be false

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by pr1 View Post

            So... from the information OP has provided, answering anything other than "Yes, you accepted them" to the question "Has the worker ever sent a substitute to do this work?" would be false
            No, the client is answering truthfully. They disagree that a valid substitution occurred. The OP provided no specific examples, according to the client, and the client has no record of any substitutions. Again, CEST is a sideshow here and the thoughtful response from the client makes that very clear.




            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

              No, the client is answering truthfully. They disagree that a valid substitution occurred. The OP provided no specific examples, according to the client, and the client has no record of any substitutions. Again, CEST is a sideshow here and the thoughtful response from the client makes that very clear.
              All legal things eventually come down to an interpretation.
              As the client has the legal responsibility for that interpretation, and the risk of any liabilities associated, their interpretation trumps all others. TBF this is the way IR35 should have always worked.

              Maybe they'll next shift the liability of tax avoidance schemes onto the client/agency.
              See You Next Tuesday

              Comment

              Working...
              X