Using client email address?

[aoxomoxoa]

Many consultancies rely on this, for a couple of reasons.

1) They don't want it to be obvious at first glance that they don't have the skills in-house.

2) They want to be able to retain "ownership" of any emails, and be able to check back through any logs to see what was said by you. If it's on your own email system, they can't easily do that.

I wouldn't worry about it, to be honest.

I think another reason for this is to avoid confusion internally as part of normal day-to-day business activity. If fred.bloggs@client.co.uk gets an email from a.contractor@client.co.uk asking for information, co-operation on a task etc, they're more likely to respond positively than if it comes from a.contractor@contractorco.co.uk as it's more likely to be a legit request from within the clientco organisation.

One of my recent clients also required all contractors to use their email system to ensure encryption of all emails.

As other posters have said it's most unlikely to be an issue from an IR35 perspective.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Client has since got back to me and said they want me to "pose as an employee" which has raised my alarm levels a little higher. I agree with all the above that simply using a client's email system isn't really indicative of anything but I certainly wouldn't want to give anybody the impression that I'm their employee.

All things considered, I'm thinking about not pursuing this. I'm not sure that there would be lots of work and the work requested doesn't seem to be all that interesting. IME, these kind of design agencies don't make the best clients and I'd much rather be doing direct consulting with my own clients.

[northernladuk]

Client has since got back to me and said they want me to "pose as an employee" which has raised my alarm levels a little higher. I agree with all the above that simply using a client's email system isn't really indicative of anything but I certainly wouldn't want to give anybody the impression that I'm their employee.

All things considered, I'm thinking about not pursuing this. I'm not sure that there would be lots of work and the work requested doesn't seem to be all that interesting. IME, these kind of design agencies don't make the best clients and I'd much rather be doing direct consulting with my own clients.

I think you are completely misunderstanding IR35. It is how you deliver your business to your client. As a business or as a disguised employee. How they want to dress you up to their client is totally irrelevant. Many businesses use skills from others but put it under the banner of their service.

I am through a consultancy and if the client asks if I am with 'Consultancy' I say yes. If someone asks 'Do I work for Consultancy' the answer is no. I won't lie to a client but happy to represent the consultancy to the client.

If they mean 'pose' as in lie then walk away. If they mean pose as in be part of the team under the same banner I don't see a problem.

EDIT : I am assuming your client is putting a solution forward to their client. If I have this wrong and they want you to 'pose as a permie' so as not to piss off the other permies then yeah, that's not cool.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I think you are completely misunderstanding IR35. It is how you deliver your business to your client. As a business or as a disguised employee. How they want to dress you up to their client is totally irrelevant. Many businesses use skills from others but put it under the banner of their service.

I am through a consultancy and if the client asks if I am with 'Consultancy' I say yes. If someone asks 'Do I work for Consultancy' the answer is no. I won't lie to a client but happy to represent the consultancy to the client.

If they mean 'pose' as in lie then walk away. If they mean pose as in be part of the team under the same banner I don't see a problem.

I do understand what IR35 is all about. In this particular case, when they say "pose" I believe that they want me to lie. They do not want their client to know I'm not an employee at all. That + the nature of the work is enough for me to walk away.

I have no problem representing my clients to their clients. I've done it before. If I'm communicating to a client's client then as far as I'm concerned, it's a given that I'm representing them. But its always been clear to the end client that I am a contractor. I've never been asked to "pose as an employee" before.

[northernladuk]

I do understand what IR35 is all about. In this particular case, when they say "pose" I believe that they want me to lie. They do not want their client to know I'm not an employee at all. That + the nature of the work is enough for me to walk away.

I have no problem representing my clients to their clients. I've done it before. If I'm communicating to a client's client then as far as I'm concerned, it's a given that I'm representing them. But its always been clear to the end client that I am a contractor. I've never been asked to "pose as an employee" before.

In that case you're right to be very wary!! Can't see how they think they will get away with this.

[jamesbrown]

I always use my own e-mail etc. This isn't for IR35 reasons, but I personally believe that it's more appropriate and more practical. It would feel very odd to use a client's e-mail facility when I'm representing MyCo, not ClientCo; this includes the work done by MyCo for ClientCo. Also, on a practical level, I want all my e-mails in one place, not across several client's e-mail accounts, especially if there's carryover between clients (e.g. in supporting a tool or doing similar work) or when you have multiple clients at once.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Hmm, after re-reading the last email I received, it seems they are more concerned about their existing supplier rather than their end client knowing that I'm an external contractor, presumably because they don't want their existing supplier to know they might be getting dropped. Whilst this makes sense, this still seems dishonest to me.

[Contreras]

Hmm, after re-reading the last email I received, it seems they are more concerned about their existing supplier rather than their end client knowing that I'm an external contractor, presumably because they don't want their existing supplier to know they might be getting dropped. Whilst this makes sense, this still seems dishonest to me.

In that case a compromise would be to agree to use the email address but edit your job title simply as "contractor" in the email signature, along with your own mobile number instead of the default. I do this at current client and no-one has ever queried it, it's a subtle and polite way of flagging up that you're different without breaking the corporate image so you're still part of the team.

[GillsMan]

In that case a compromise would be to agree to use the email address but edit your job title simply as "contractor" in the email signature, along with your own mobile number instead of the default. I do this at current client and no-one has ever queried it, it's a subtle and polite way of flagging up that you're different without breaking the corporate image so you're still part of the team.

Or "Consultant" would be an even better term to use.

[Contreras]

Or "Consultant" would be an even better term to use.

That wouldn't be such a differentiator when some of the permies are already listed as 'consultant'.