Unable to give notice?

[dmini]

You've started the contract. Therefore in many ways you are deemed to have accepted their terms.
I'm guessing you're with a rather large agency - H***S - it sounds like their T&C. They will not negotiate major changes for most of their contracts.
Is the contract really so bad you cannot stick with it for 6 months? Or is it just you want to be able to jump if something better comes along.

Just a thought - if I was a client and I knew a contractor working for me was arguing over insisting on a 1 month notice on his side - I would get rid of him pronto. I want a contractor for 6 months plus - this guy is arguing over notice - I would get shut of him immediately. And btw your contract probably has a clause saying that they can do that in the first month - with zero notice. And if you leave they may well have a clause that you have to pay them - but you have checked for that haven't you

[MonkeyWorld]

Currently going through an IR35 investigation and I can tell you first hand that no notice on your side creates a suggestion of MOO in that you are obligated to accept work for the contract period = actually worse for IR35 than a notice period on your side. This is unless you have a clause that says that you can reject work that is not specified in your contract schedule.

Personally I was with everyone else that no notice 'looked' better, but opinion from QDOS and Accountax says otherwise.

[thunderlizard]

This is unless you have a clause that says that you can reject work that is not specified in your contract schedule.

why would you need such a clause (though I'm sure one would be helpful)? If you've got a contract schedule specifying what you have to do, I'd have thought that by implication, it means you don't have to do anything else.

[malvolio]

Currently going through an IR35 investigation and I can tell you first hand that no notice on your side creates a suggestion of MOO in that you are obligated to accept work for the contract period = actually worse for IR35 than a notice period on your side. This is unless you have a clause that says that you can reject work that is not specified in your contract schedule.

Personally I was with everyone else that no notice 'looked' better, but opinion from QDOS and Accountax says otherwise.

Interesting - complete opposite of everything we've been told in the past: for one thing you can't give an employee a contract that they cannot get out of... I shall inquire further.

[QwertyBerty]

Currently going through an IR35 investigation and I can tell you first hand that no notice on your side creates a suggestion of MOO in that you are obligated to accept work for the contract period = actually worse for IR35 than a notice period on your side.

That had crossed my mind. But I thought MOO is essentially about future work beyond the current contract. If you have a 4 week notice period then you're obligated to stay another 4 weeks.

Seems to me HMRC are clutching at straws here, hardly surprising given their success rate.

QB.

[Chugnut]

Currently going through an IR35 investigation and I can tell you first hand that no notice on your side creates a suggestion of MOO in that you are obligated to accept work for the contract period = actually worse for IR35 than a notice period on your side. This is unless you have a clause that says that you can reject work that is not specified in your contract schedule.

Personally I was with everyone else that no notice 'looked' better, but opinion from QDOS and Accountax says otherwise.

I'm very surprised to hear this too, and if QDOS / Accountax are of that opinion I'm sure they must have changed their minds based on new case experience? No notice clauses have always been a strong pointer, to my knowledge.

I've often wondered that as new developments come to light each time an investigation is carried out, earlier contracts deemed IR35 safe seem to get progressively weaker.

[malvolio]

Currently going through an IR35 investigation and I can tell you first hand that no notice on your side creates a suggestion of MOO in that you are obligated to accept work for the contract period = actually worse for IR35 than a notice period on your side. This is unless you have a clause that says that you can reject work that is not specified in your contract schedule.

Personally I was with everyone else that no notice 'looked' better, but opinion from QDOS and Accountax says otherwise.

Thinking about this a little more, you may be mis-interpreting what they are saying. If your contract and your working conditions are such that you have to accept whatever work is sent your way then you may well be stuffed for IR35 if there are no other indicators. The notice period is not strictly part of that equation, although obviously it does hava bearing on duration.

However, employees have to have notice periods, you don't have a notice period, therefore you are not an employee. QED...

IANAL. Perhaps QDOS could provide a more realistic explanation...?

[MonkeyWorld]

Thinking about this a little more, you may be mis-interpreting what they are saying. If your contract and your working conditions are such that you have to accept whatever work is sent your way then you may well be stuffed for IR35 if there are no other indicators. The notice period is not strictly part of that equation, although obviously it does hava bearing on duration.

However, employees have to have notice periods, you don't have a notice period, therefore you are not an employee. QED...

IANAL. Perhaps QDOS could provide a more realistic explanation...?

Mal, understand what you are saying and to my mind no notice period on my side sounds like great news - to the effect that I negotiated my contract that way, but I've just had my contract reviewed by QDos and they are looking at MOO, Control and Subtitution as the 3 key factors in winning an IR35 case and they've advised me to look to get the contract change to include a reciprocal notice period on my side to avoid questions of MOO.

Not saying it's significant and each judge will decide differently, but I can only go on best advice. Personally I think it stinks and changes year on year, and that having no notice you clearly can't be an employee, but the Tax specialists helping me aren't agreeing with my thinking. Significance ? Well, I've changed my contract to a reciprocal 4 week notice period - personally I think it makes me look more like an employee - QDos think otherwise and reckon it's more defendable. Confused, yes I am! I'm no newb - I've been in contracting for more than 10yrs - I read stuff, I read forums, blogs, I no full blown nerd - partial maybe, but I know what I'm doing and then the tax specialist guys tell me otherwise. Confused, yes I am!

[ruth11]

We've had this discussion before and there are 2 ways to interpret "no notice period".

The one that's good for IR35 means that you don't have to give notice and can walk whenever you like

The one that's bad for IR35 is "not being able to give notice" - ie you are obligated to fulfill the full contract term.

I believe the OP is talking about that latter - I have the same such clause in my contract, but managed to negotiate other areas of the contract so that it wasn't such a big issue and it still passes.

[malvolio]

Its still backwards, it's still illogical and it's still 100% opposite to all previous advice. How can having to complete a piece of work wohjouth the option be seen as evidence of employement?

I think I'll challenge this with the experts...