Contract inside IR35, via Umbrella, Agency insists on opt-out of 2003 Regs

[Spoiler]

What are you hoping to achieve with the change in status if you don't mine me asking?

One thing only - reduce the exclusivity period from 12 months to 8 weeks.

[northernladuk]

One thing only - reduce the exclusivity period from 12 months to 8 weeks.

You are assuming the agency will allow you to opt-in as per the original point of the thread?

There is also the stink the agency will cause if you do try pull a fast one and will likely go moaning to the client who won't want to get involved in any legal issues and could possibly drop your application or whatever you are doing.

I can't remember a situation where a contractor has used their opt in/out status to influence any decision so don't go believing it's your golden bullet. Do everything properly but be prepared for it not to make an ounce of difference so have a plan B.

[malvolio]

You are assuming the agency will allow you to opt-in as per the original point of the thread?

There is also the stink the agency will cause if you do try pull a fast one and will likely go moaning to the client who won't want to get involved in any legal issues and could possibly drop your application or whatever you are doing.

I can't remember a situation where a contractor has used their opt in/out status to influence any decision so don't go believing it's your golden bullet. Do everything properly but be prepared for it not to make an ounce of difference so have a plan B.

Or, to paraphrase, it won't work and you may be out of a job.

[Spoiler]

You are assuming the agency will allow you to opt-in as per the original point of the thread?

There is also the stink the agency will cause if you do try pull a fast one and will likely go moaning to the client who won't want to get involved in any legal issues and could possibly drop your application or whatever you are doing.

I can't remember a situation where a contractor has used their opt in/out status to influence any decision so don't go believing it's your golden bullet. Do everything properly but be prepared for it not to make an ounce of difference so have a plan B.

Thanks. Actually this 'opt-in' status thing is my plan C. Plans A & B are already in motion, just looking for an alternate if something doesn't work out. I'm fine with the contract not renewing, have already floated the idea that I won't renew. This would be my terms if they want me to renew.

[malvolio]

Thanks. Actually this 'opt-in' status thing is my plan C. Plans A & B are already in motion, just looking for an alternate if something doesn't work out. I'm fine with the contract not renewing, have already floated the idea that I won't renew. This would be my terms if they want me to renew.

OK, but your status under the Regs won't make a difference to anything and never has. A 12 month non-compete clause is perfectly reasonable, if you are supplying or are in possession of business critical knowledge. If you aren't then it's restraint of trade. If you're going to argue about it, at least start from the right point.

Furthermore, clients do not appreciate being bullied. Especially in what is very much a buyer's market

[Spoiler]

Furthermore, clients do not appreciate being bullied. Especially in what is very much a buyer's market

The "client" and I are aligned and they want to cut out the agent, so they are approaching the agent their side and negotiating removal of the non-compete. Let's see what happens.
I don't care about upsetting the agent (just as long as they don't come after me legally ).

[malvolio]

The "client" and I are aligned and they want to cut out the agent, so they are approaching the agent their side and negotiating removal of the non-compete. Let's see what happens.
I don't care about upsetting the agent (just as long as they don't come after me legally ).

In that case, it is nothing to do with you. The contract between the "client" (or whoever) and the agency is separate to yours with the agency. More to the point, if the agency will be earning no more income as a result of the "client's" decisions to cut them out, they have nothing to lose financially and your non-compete clause is immediately irrelevant and, more importantly, unreasonable. They may try to insist you finish the term of your contract with them, but that is easily defeated.

The underlying issue is the agencies (not just yours) selling themselves as a supplier of manpower from their own resources, ignoring the reality that without us they don't have a product. On occasion, that comes back to bite them.

[agentzero]

OK, but your status under the Regs won't make a difference to anything and never has. A 12 month non-compete clause is perfectly reasonable, if you are supplying or are in possession of business critical knowledge. If you aren't then it's restraint of trade. If you're going to argue about it, at least start from the right point.

Furthermore, clients do not appreciate being bullied. Especially in what is very much a buyer's market

It's 2025 and you're still gaslighting people with your imagined nonsense. I suspect you are of the generation that think they can state something as fact which isn't and double down to get away with it. That doesn't the fact it isn't a fact.

A one year non-compete clause is absolutely not common or perfectly reasonable for an inside IR35 contract, which by definition is a temporary contract. Let's look at all the court cases involving such clauses - argh wait, they've all failed for the prosecution for inside IR35 contracts.

Honestly, this forum used to be extremely useful and is now mostly a bunch of right wing ex public sector middle managers posting. Have you ever thought about taking a day off Malvolio?

[malvolio]

It's 2025 and you're still gaslighting people with your imagined nonsense. I suspect you are of the generation that think they can state something as fact which isn't and double down to get away with it. That doesn't the fact it isn't a fact.

A one year non-compete clause is absolutely not common or perfectly reasonable for an inside IR35 contract, which by definition is a temporary contract. Let's look at all the court cases involving such clauses - argh wait, they've all failed for the prosecution for inside IR35 contracts.

Honestly, this forum used to be extremely useful and is now mostly a bunch of right wing ex public sector middle managers posting. Have you ever thought about taking a day off Malvolio?

Have you read the whole thread?

The discussion is not about the legality or otherwise of a handcuff, merely its applicable term. The OP for good reasons wants to minmise it. All I've been saying is that using the Regs is not how to approach that aim.

And this antique middle manager (I'm neither, incidentally) has been studying and discussing the Regs since long before they were passed into effect. AFAIK they haven't been changed since then.

[Spoiler]

A one year non-compete clause is absolutely not common or perfectly reasonable for an inside IR35 contract, which by definition is a temporary contract. Let's look at all the court cases involving such clauses - argh wait, they've all failed for the prosecution for inside IR35 contracts.

Just to clarify my specific position (as i hijacked this thread) - my contract is outside IR35.