HR asking for VDU questionnaire, passport & utility bill. IR35 issues ?

[northernladuk]

The client asks to verify your passport, in the same way they do for all their employees. The client engages Cap Gemini to provide one project manager. The client does not ask to see her passport, because they are clearly not an employee of the client. The client engages Capita to provide 50 resources. The client does not check any of their passports.

Where is the easy defence from that evidence that the client is viewing the contractor as a supplier rather than an employer?

And you think there is no diligence in place to check the bigger contractors at all? You have to be kidding right. The client may not see each contractors passport but there will still be something in place. It just has to be proven that the client puts the effort in to make sure he is covered, either contractually with the bigger guys or individually for the smaller ones and you are in the clear. The method of checking is irrelevant as long is it can be proved the client carries out some form of effort on everyone to check.

The regs do say people in contract of service and apprenticeships must be checked, not just employees. You can't be held responsible if HR don't understand these terms.

If you are so unhappy about giving your passport details to the client when they ask why do you send them to agents before being interviewed?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1096933

[tractor]

..

And you think there is no diligence in place to check the bigger contractors at all? You have to be kidding right. The client may not see each contractors passport but there will still be something in place. It just has to be proven that the client puts the effort in to make sure he is covered, either contractually with the bigger guys or individually for the smaller ones and you are in the clear. The method of checking is irrelevant as long is it can be proved the client carries out some form of effort on everyone to check.

I don't know about passport checks but for H & S issues like DSE, you cannot derogate your responsibility by contract.

[northernladuk]

I don't know about passport checks but for H & S issues like DSE, you cannot derogate your responsibility by contract.

Agreed but we've kind of dropped the HSE part of the argument now.

[SueEllen]

The client asks to verify your passport, in the same way they do for all their employees. The client engages Cap Gemini to provide one project manager. The client does not ask to see her passport, because they are clearly not an employee of the client. The client engages Capita to provide 50 resources. The client does not check any of their passports.

Where is the easy defence from that evidence that the client is viewing the contractor as a supplier rather than an employer?

Not true.

Some clients I have had both when I worked as a permie for consultancies and as a contractor, have required new workers to turn up on site with a valid passport (or alternative documents from a list) otherwise you don't get a security badge.

No security badge and your aren't allowed on site.

Some pretend it's a security measure to get around objections like some of the posters but since the passport has to show you are legally allowed to work in the country it's clear what they are checking up on. Interestingly the vast majority don't make copies to keep.

Funnily enough as a permie for one consultancy, the client companies often did this but the actual consultancy hadn't. One day they went into panic mode and everyone had to turn up with their valid work documents. Unfortunately while they could understand EU passports they had difficulty understanding work permits....

[TheFaQQer]

And you think there is no diligence in place to check the bigger contractors at all? You have to be kidding right. The client may not see each contractors passport but there will still be something in place. It just has to be proven that the client puts the effort in to make sure he is covered, either contractually with the bigger guys or individually for the smaller ones and you are in the clear. The method of checking is irrelevant as long is it can be proved the client carries out some form of effort on everyone to check.

If the method of checking is irrelevant, then a letter from the employer stating that they have carried out a check and all consultants provided are eligible to work in the UK will suffice.

If you are so unhappy about giving your passport details to the client when they ask why do you send them to agents before being interviewed?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1096933

As per my earlier post:

I have no issue with showing the client a form of identity, if there is a genuine business reason that they need to see it - my current client needed to see it before they would put me through internal security clearance and give me access to the right servers.

[northernladuk]

If the method of checking is irrelevant, then a letter from the employer stating that they have carried out a check and all consultants provided are eligible to work in the UK will suffice.

Absolutely!! No argument with that and I wish this would wash but you know HR depts so it won't in most cases so just do what will.

[TheFaQQer]

If you are so unhappy about giving your passport details to the client when they ask why do you send them to agents before being interviewed?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1096933

You're comparing apples with oranges.

[northernladuk]

You're comparing apples with oranges.

Like comparing passport checks for large corporate outsourcers vs a one man disguised permie you mean?

[SteelyDan]

And what about the other analogy that you didn't consider:

Well I did consider it, but didn't really want to get into protracted debate, but suffice to say as a perm consultant seconded to a major pub sec client, yes I have needed to provide these details. This despite the consultancy being on the pub sec client PSL.

At the end of the day, if (as a contractor) you're not happy with the situation, then don't do it and provide reasons why. If that results in you not being allowed on site and losing your gig, then your choice. I was merely responding to a post based on my views and experience, & not intending to go sabre rattling.

To the OP; I wasn't suggesting you were being hysterical, or paranoid, & yes you were right to ask the question. As you have seen you get mixed responses on here, with some views being more forcibly put than others.

[TheFaQQer]

Like comparing passport checks for large corporate outsourcers vs a one man disguised permie you mean?

I'm glad you are starting to see that acting like an employee makes you a disguised permie.