terminology or real problem?

[Ignis Fatuus]

Agency gives you a decent IR35-friendly contract. Then someone at agency's accounts says that something or other has to be approved by "your line manager". Do you:
shut up and carry on?
reply that you don't have one?
say "that must be me, I'm the director"?

ISTM that you either step into D&C, or annoy the crap out of the people who process your payments by consincing them that your head is up your arse, or take the piss and not get paid.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Agency gives you a decent IR35-friendly contract. Then someone at agency's accounts says that something or other has to be approved by "your line manager". Do you:
shut up and carry on?
reply that you don't have one?
say "that must be me, I'm the director"?

ISTM that you either step into D&C, or annoy the crap out of the people who process your payments by consincing them that your head is up your arse, or take the piss and not get paid.

What happens in reality - if you don't need approval for anything from anyone then it is not unreasonable to ask to have the clause removed; if you do then the clause is reasonable and you are probably not, in reality, outside IR35

[Ignis Fatuus]

What happens in reality - if you don't need approval for anything from anyone then it is not unreasonable to ask to have the clause removed; if you do then the clause is reasonable and you are probably not, in reality, outside IR35

It is a question of client approval for expenses incurred in travel to other sites as requested by the client. I wouldn't think there is a problem with that in principle, but I objected to the phrase "line manager". Or is it OK for a contractor to admit to having a "line manager"? I suggested "responsible person authorised by the client".

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

It isn't unreasonable for expenses (disbursements) to require authorisation - as long as that is the only indication of control I wouldn't have thought the terminology would make too much difference

[northernladuk]

He probably has a budget to run and could quite possibly under serious travel restrictions so to get approval in perfectly reasonable. Just because you are a contractor doesn't mean you can spend their money when you want and can ride roughshod over any cost saving/regulatory process's in place. It is still professional to respect a clients method of doing business. Just because they are micro managing travel costs doesn't mean you are under D&C. I have been at a client where we had two total bans on travel, not even to a site 5 miles away without senior approval. Trying to get directory sign of for a 10 mile round trip was just unbelieveable so just did it and just claimed it through the company as part of my 'service'.

When stuff like this happens ask yourself what do the other large outsourcers ,that are clearly businesses, have to do. Accenture had to follow the same process for their travel so I didn't feel it made me look like a disguised permie.

[Ignis Fatuus]

He probably has a budget to run and could quite possibly under serious travel restrictions so to get approval in perfectly reasonable. Just because you are a contractor doesn't mean you can spend their money when you want and can ride roughshod over any cost saving/regulatory process's in place. It is still professional to respect a clients method of doing business. Just because they are micro managing travel costs doesn't mean you are under D&C. I have been at a client where we had two total bans on travel, not even to a site 5 miles away without senior approval. Trying to get directory sign of for a 10 mile round trip was just unbelieveable so just did it and just claimed it through the company as part of my 'service'.

When stuff like this happens ask yourself what do the other large outsourcers ,that are clearly businesses, have to do. Accenture had to follow the same process for their travel so I didn't feel it made me look like a disguised permie.

No, indeed, I don't feel it's in any way out of order for the client to have to approve expenditure. I just had this feeling that a line manager means the manager of an employee. I'm probably wrong there.

[northernladuk]

No, indeed, I don't feel it's in any way out of order for the client to have to approve expenditure. I just had this feeling that a line manager means the manager of an employee. I'm probably wrong there.

Well the business directory says a line manager is..

A manager who heads a revenue-generating department and is responsible for achieving an organization's main objectives by executing functions such as policy making, target setting, decision making.


Read more: What is line manager? definition and meaning

so wouldn't be overly worried but a quick word to see if the can use the term 'client manager' or something wouldn't do any harm I think.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Well the business directory says a line manager is..

So I should have RTFM? Nah....

[tractor]

...

So I should have RTFM? Nah....

Trouble is, there is a dictionary definition of 'employee' but it's not been tested at law, probably neither has 'line manager' I would suggest your agent can call the person line manager, coconut, ford fiesta or whatever they like. Just keep referring to them as budget holder and you will be fine!

[BolshieBastard]

Agency gives you a decent IR35-friendly contract. Then someone at agency's accounts says that something or other has to be approved by "your line manager". Do you:
shut up and carry on?
reply that you don't have one?
say "that must be me, I'm the director"?

ISTM that you either step into D&C, or annoy the crap out of the people who process your payments by consincing them that your head is up your arse, or take the piss and not get paid.

It is a question of client approval for expenses incurred in travel to other sites as requested by the client. I wouldn't think there is a problem with that in principle, but I objected to the phrase "line manager". Or is it OK for a contractor to admit to having a "line manager"? I suggested "responsible person authorised by the client".

What, so you expect an additional expense doesnt need client sign off?

I think you know it has to be signed off by someone at the client. As for the agent saying 'line manager,' so what? Its only semantics at the end of the day.