Originally posted by psychocandy
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Working Practices pass, but contract is a fail
Collapse
X
-
Yeah definitely looking that way, the client is going to be very unhappy if I decide to not take it. I have no idea why they find it so difficult to understand.In Scooter we trust
-
If you hit a stone wall with the Agency then a polite word with the client explaining why you're unable to accept the renewal due to the Agency trying to impose conditions may be in order. Nothing to lose at that point really.Originally posted by The Spartan View PostYeah definitely looking that way, the client is going to be very unhappy if I decide to not take it. I have no idea why they find it so difficult to understand.Comment
-
Just got off the phone with the agent all sorted now they're going to make the amendments after I mentioned that I would indeed inform the client that they were jerking me around with the contract.Originally posted by TykeMerc View PostIf you hit a stone wall with the Agency then a polite word with the client explaining why you're unable to accept the renewal due to the Agency trying to impose conditions may be in order. Nothing to lose at that point really.
In Scooter we trust
Comment
-
Sensible use of the negotiation point there, or more accurately the negotiating baseball bat with nails through itOriginally posted by The Spartan View PostJust got off the phone with the agent all sorted now they're going to make the amendments after I mentioned that I would indeed inform the client that they were jerking me around with the contract.
Comment
-
It's more likely the threat of the Op and 299 of his mates turning up at the agency dress in capes and a loin cloths carry shields and spears that tipped it.Originally posted by TykeMerc View PostSensible use of the negotiation point there, or more accurately the negotiating baseball bat with nails through it
'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostIt's more likely the threat of the Op and 299 of his mates turning up at the agency dress in capes and a loin cloths carry shields and spears that tipped it.
you got that right, the thought had definitely crossed my mind. Glad it's resolved now but I'm horrified at how such a small change in legislation has been taken.
In Scooter we trust
Comment
-
To be ever so slightly fair to the agency it might be a small change but if they have misunderstood it ,which looks likely, it could look like they are exposing themselves to a lot of risk hence the knee jerk reaction.Originally posted by The Spartan View Post
you got that right, the thought had definitely crossed my mind. Glad it's resolved now but I'm horrified at how such a small change in legislation has been taken.
Actually saying thay, **** Em, they screwed up and look a bit silly now. No being fair to them.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
Comment
-
Just had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:
In relation to the agency legislation (Chapter 7, Part 2 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003) (also
known as the Onshore Intermediary legislation), on behalf of <The Company> I declare:
That all individual(s) supplied by <The Company> and <ROA> (known as PSC) is/are
owners/directors and shareholders of the company (such shareholding is more than 5%);
That the PSC will provide such evidence as required by <The Recruitment Company> that any
individuals supplied by the PSC are shareholders or directors;
That, in order to benefit from the transfer of liability provision set out in section 44(4)(b) of the Income
Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, any remuneration payable by the PSC to any individuals supplied
by it is treated by the PSC as employment income;
That, any other payments (which do not amount to remuneration) made by the PSC to any individuals
supplied by it are treated as dividend income as a genuine consequence of that individual's
shareholding in the PSC;
That the PSC is VAT registered;
That if the PSC is VAT registered I will provide a copy of the VAT Registration Certificate;
That the PSC is not an Offshore Company.
Should the PSC fail to meet the above criteria, then the PSC will be unable to provide their service to the <Recruitment company>In Scooter we trust
Comment
-
Hmmm - so you sign that and blow your right of substitution because everyone has to be a director or owns more than 5% of your company.Originally posted by The Spartan View PostJust had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:
In relation to the agency legislation (Chapter 7, Part 2 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003) (also
known as the Onshore Intermediary legislation), on behalf of <The Company> I declare:
That all individual(s) supplied by <The Company> and <ROA> (known as PSC) is/are
owners/directors and shareholders of the company (such shareholding is more than 5%);
That the PSC will provide such evidence as required by <The Recruitment Company> that any
individuals supplied by the PSC are shareholders or directors;
That, in order to benefit from the transfer of liability provision set out in section 44(4)(b) of the Income
Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, any remuneration payable by the PSC to any individuals supplied
by it is treated by the PSC as employment income;
That, any other payments (which do not amount to remuneration) made by the PSC to any individuals
supplied by it are treated as dividend income as a genuine consequence of that individual's
shareholding in the PSC;
That the PSC is VAT registered;
That if the PSC is VAT registered I will provide a copy of the VAT Registration Certificate;
That the PSC is not an Offshore Company.
Should the PSC fail to meet the above criteria, then the PSC will be unable to provide their service to the <Recruitment company>Comment
-
And (apart from walking away from a contract*), this is your problem how?Originally posted by The Spartan View PostJust had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:
(*In the same position I'd do exactly the same as you btw.)"I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
- Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- 26 predictions for UK IT contracting in 2026 Today 07:17
- How salary sacrifice pension changes will hit contractors Dec 24 07:48
- All the big IR35/employment status cases of 2025: ranked Dec 23 08:55
- Why IT contractors are (understandably) fed up with recruitment agencies Dec 22 13:57
- Contractors, don’t fall foul of HMRC’s expenses rules this Christmas party season Dec 19 09:55
- A delay to the employment status consultation isn’t why an IR35 fix looks further out of reach Dec 18 08:22
- How asking a tech jobs agency basic questions got one IT contractor withdrawn Dec 17 07:21
- Are Home Office immigration policies sacrificing IT contractors for ‘cheap labour’? Dec 16 07:48
- Will 2026 see the return of the ‘Outside IR35’ contractor? Dec 15 07:51
- Contractors, Reeves’ dividends raid is disastrous. Act, but without acceptance Dec 12 07:10

Comment