New Clause in a contract that I have never seen before

[moira under the stairs]

You asked so I explained. It isn't about green eyed monster at all. That is just ridiculous. It is nothing to do with the over complexity, they went out of their way to follow a more complex route to avoid it. Anyway, this is off topic. Go discuss it in the correct threads if you feel that strongly.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...avoidance.html

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...judgement.html

is it !!!

[v5srv]

Recognised that as Capita as soon as I saw it - same clause in mine from last year. Had it reviewed by QDOS. Passed without any comment.

[BolshieBastard]

I have now had a response out of Capita and the omens appear ominous.

I had asked for clarification of the clause and to understand how far tax avoidance scheme reaches.

They have stated that they will not remove the clause. as it is there to protect them from contractors using offshore schemes (yawn) I, in turn have told the agent that I will be taking representation to review the contract in the whole, and that I have other offers on the table...

Capita are stating that this is to protect them from offshore tax schemes and money laundering. However I am very nervous of holding a contract that basically states that I will be held liable for paying myself as an employee, while stating that I am not one for the purpose of employment rights and protections, and that they will terminiate the contract as soon as HMRC come sniffing about.

Sad as usual its the client that will lose out in this...

Doesnt surprise me they wont change. They want to protect themselves with the client first and foremost. At the end of the day, they'll rather you walk and some other mug will sign it and adhere to it.

What do you think might happen if you sign?

Being pragmatic, you can say nothing or, you could say 'well I expect agencies to adhere to the T&C's so why should I be different myself?'

Seriously, if you are suggesting signing and ignoring it because you dont like \ agree with it, I think we are on dodgey ground. But each to their own.

My position is to act professionally even with something I disagree with. So, my response, as I have mentioned before, is to get the clause removed or walk away. I'd never advocate signing a contract then, just disregard the bits of it I disagree with or dont like.