'IPSE Friendly' contract failed by QDOS

[eek]

Jeez...what's up with you? I realise I'm not entitled to see the templates, but only asking for a yea or nay about one clause rather than a "doesn't seem to be" .

I am in touch with QDOS about it all.... this was just an aside as the agency started quoting IPSE at me.

You might want to reread what you said previously and think about it.

Thanks. Be great if someone with access to the IPSE template substitution clause could tell me what it DOES say so's I can get back to the agency.

Remember by this point 3 of us had already told you what you claim to have been asking for. You then asked us to provide you with the actual clause..

I can understand you wanting to back track when I called you out as someone after a freebie... But the above is exactly what you asked for.. and that is not what you are now claiming to have asked for....

[mudskipper]

Contract checklist is available to non-members, and covers at a high level what you're looking for

https://www.ipse.co.uk/advice/contract-templates

The quoted clause doesn't meet the requirement for an unfettered RoS in section 2.

[malvolio]

Actually I don't really care about QDOS's view on the quoted clause, which is pretty much right in what they are saying but is not the IPSE original, I'm more worried about agencies claiming a legitimacy they don't possess, which is why it's been passed back to the IPSE management team.

[normalbloke]

You might want to reread what you said previously and think about it.



Remember by this point 3 of us had already told you what you claim to have been asking for. You then asked us to provide you with the actual clause..

I can understand you wanting to back track when I called you out as someone after a freebie... But the above is exactly what you asked for.. and that is not what you are now claiming to have asked for....

I can see now why you have that avatar.

Thankfully some other IPSE members have been really helpful. I will let them know how it goes with the agency.

[psychocandy]

Confused. Did we establish whether the agency was using the clause from the IPSE contract as is?

If so, then it'd be an issue if IPSE/QDOS disagreed.

Although when I first read the post, first thing that came to mind was yeh right agency making crap up, like they all do, saying their contract is fine etc.

[mudskipper]

Confused. Did we establish whether the agency was using the clause from the IPSE contract as is?

If so, then it'd be an issue if IPSE/QDOS disagreed.

Although when I first read the post, first thing that came to mind was yeh right agency making crap up, like they all do, saying their contract is fine etc.

Yes, we did.

[eek]

Confused. Did we establish whether the agency was using the clause from the IPSE contract as is?

If so, then it'd be an issue if IPSE/QDOS disagreed.

Although when I first read the post, first thing that came to mind was yeh right agency making crap up, like they all do, saying their contract is fine etc.

The clause as posted is nothing like the one in the current IPSE contract....

[SueEllen]

The clause as posted is nothing like the one in the current IPSE contract....

WHS

I was going to use an IPSE contract a while ago and the right of substitution is definitely not worded like that.

I also wonder why agencies don't think they will be caught out with their distortions. Different ones keep trying it on but keep getting caught.

[TheFaQQer]

The clause as posted is nothing like the one in the current IPSE contract....

However, that doesn't mean that the contract clause posted wasn't reviewed by IPSE and approved as IR35-friendly.

[mudskipper]

However, that doesn't mean that the contract clause posted wasn't reviewed by IPSE and approved as IR35-friendly.

Although to my inexpert opinion, it seems unlikely.