Timesheet IR35 indicator?

[TheFaQQer]

Would you engage a builder with the request 'Build stuff'?

If I was engaging a builder on a time and materials or time hire basis, then yes - he turns up and I tell him what I want doing.

If I was engaging a builder on a fixed price engagement, then we'd have a much more detailed scope of works agreed.

The analogy doesn't always work in IT, though.

[Tasslehoff]

You need to understand all this better so you know what to do rather than just stumble through asking questions every step of the way TBH. You are just ticking boxes which isn't great defense.

Would you engage a builder with the request 'Build stuff'? That title sounds more like a role description than a contracted piece of work to me. I have a feeling we are only scratching the surface of your issues here as well.

I would not, but that's not what I am asking. If the builder was investigated for IR35 would it be detrimental for his services to be specified as "Build Stuff"?

[jamesbrown]

Some people will say that you should always have the contract as narrow as you can, so that it shows that you were there for specific projects, but IMO it really depends on what you do. If I'm brought in to design and implement from the top down as a solution architect, then I'd want the details of what the project was in there; if I'm brought in as a technical grunt then all I'd want is the technology, since on a large project there are many different things that a technical resource might need to do.

There's an element of artistry to it. For short-term or fixed-price work, I try to get the deliverables defined as precisely and narrowly as possible, not for IR35 reasons, but to reduce business risk. However, on longer projects where the requirements have not been tightly defined or are likely to evolve (which is most cases), you cannot define the deliverables so tightly that you're revising the contract every 10 minutes.

[jamesbrown]

I would not, but that's not what I am asking. If the builder was investigated for IR35 would it be detrimental for his services to be specified as "Build Stuff"?

The main thing is that your work is project-based. In other words, you're not being moved around several different projects at the discretion of the client where those projects are undefined in the contract. At that point, you're effectively a permie.

[Tasslehoff]

Some people will say that you should always have the contract as narrow as you can, so that it shows that you were there for specific projects, but IMO it really depends on what you do. If I'm brought in to design and implement from the top down as a solution architect, then I'd want the details of what the project was in there; if I'm brought in as a technical grunt then all I'd want is the technology, since on a large project there are many different things that a technical resource might need to do.

All of my previous contracts (all 3 of them!) have been equally as vague, more of a job title than a project specification, thankfully that's your experience also. Leaning towards leaving it as it stands.

[northernladuk]

All of my previous contracts (all 3 of them!) have been equally as vague, more of a job title than a project specification, thankfully that's your experience also. Leaning towards leaving it as it stands.

Well I think you are completely wrong and taking in to account your level of understanding of the whole thing you are digging a hole for yourself you are going to be in for years. Contract periods not matching the time spent on work is a very risky area and can easily be questioned. TF is correct in everything he says but he knows what he is doing. You don't. In your situation you should be dotting the i's and crossing the t's until you have a better grasp. Jamesbrowns last point nails it.

And just to labour a point. Permies can be asked to work on another project and can accept or leave just as you do so I don't think that point is safe enough but that's IMHO.

[northernladuk]

All of my previous contracts (all 3 of them!) have been equally as vague, more of a job title than a project specification, thankfully that's your experience also. Leaning towards leaving it as it stands.

In don't read that in to anything TF has said.

[northernladuk]

I would not, but that's not what I am asking. If the builder was investigated for IR35 would it be detrimental for his services to be specified as "Build Stuff"?

Yes because he would be under my D&C to do as I wish.

[SueEllen]

All of my previous contracts (all 3 of them!) have been equally as vague, more of a job title than a project specification, thankfully that's your experience also. Leaning towards leaving it as it stands.

You should at least have the some way of showing you are working on a particular project in the contract as well as the role description if you don't have a list of deliverables.

There is nothing wrong in finding out the project name/acronym/description from the client at interview or phoning them up later, and getting the agency to put it in the contract.

The client often does have particular codes for the project for the agency's purchase order but the agent is too lazy to put them in your contract.

Then when you invoice make sure you put the project name/acronym/description in your invoice.

[Tasslehoff]

Yes because he would be under my D&C to do as I wish.

Argh!

So I should

• Get the project (s) names amended into my contract in the "services" section
• Try to obtain a written set of project deliverables from the Client
• Add the project name into all my future invoices