Hi
I'm currently defining Services Provided as part of the schedule attached to a new contract.
I'll be managing a clearly defined set of projects and have asked the Agency to name these projects specifically in the contract schedule rather than calling the Services "Project Manager".
It occurred to me that it may be possible to get too explicit here. My contract is for several months and i although I dont expect to be asked to manage any other projects or get shifted without agreement onto managing another project, its impossible to say at this stage and opportunities may come up that i want to agree to.
If this was the case, could it be argued for IR35 that control had been exercised and my original services had changed unduly? Would it be better to keep the Services generic enough for this not to be the case?
I've had my contract/practices reviewed btw and passed, but as ever trying to cover as many bases as possible
thanks....
I'm currently defining Services Provided as part of the schedule attached to a new contract.
I'll be managing a clearly defined set of projects and have asked the Agency to name these projects specifically in the contract schedule rather than calling the Services "Project Manager".
It occurred to me that it may be possible to get too explicit here. My contract is for several months and i although I dont expect to be asked to manage any other projects or get shifted without agreement onto managing another project, its impossible to say at this stage and opportunities may come up that i want to agree to.
If this was the case, could it be argued for IR35 that control had been exercised and my original services had changed unduly? Would it be better to keep the Services generic enough for this not to be the case?
I've had my contract/practices reviewed btw and passed, but as ever trying to cover as many bases as possible
thanks....

Comment