Issue with first contract

[b0redom]

I've used QDOS and B&C. To be honest if you're prepared to walk, most places will cave.

[MrMarkyMark]

I've used QDOS and B&C. To be honest if you're prepared to walk, most places will cave.

+1 for QDOS.

[Cirrus]

I think you are one of the ones that the agent says "well no-one else wants it changed".

I'm afraid so.

As a matter of interest there are two reasons. The first is I've never seen a contract that looks problematic to me. I deal with big agencies and they're not stupid.

The second reason is I've never seen a single shred of evidence that fiddling around with contractual terms has made one iota of difference to any IR35 outcome. Who knows - I may be wrong but I don't do things on pure faith.

If you can point me to some case that proves me wrong, believe me: I'm all ears

[MrMarkyMark]

I'm afraid so.

As a matter of interest there are two reasons. The first is I've never seen a contract that looks problematic to me. I deal with big agencies and they're not stupid.

The second reason is I've never seen a single shred of evidence that fiddling around with contractual terms has made one iota of difference to any IR35 outcome. Who knows - I may be wrong but I don't do things on pure faith.

If you can point me to some case that proves me wrong, believe me: I'm all ears

Big agencies are stupid, I can assure you there are a lot of terms you wouldn't want in a contract.
I actually work with the biggest in the city and I have to tell them things about compliance, go figure.

QQFY, what do you think HMRC looks at first?

The contract.

Therefore, it may be that on seeing a compliant one, they then leave well alone.

[psychocandy]

I'm afraid so.

As a matter of interest there are two reasons. The first is I've never seen a contract that looks problematic to me. I deal with big agencies and they're not stupid.

The second reason is I've never seen a single shred of evidence that fiddling around with contractual terms has made one iota of difference to any IR35 outcome. Who knows - I may be wrong but I don't do things on pure faith.

If you can point me to some case that proves me wrong, believe me: I'm all ears

Cirrus,

On one hand I'm amazed but then your attitude does explain a lot to me....

Let me just comment.

"The first is I've never seen a contract that looks problematic to me. I deal with big agencies and they're not stupid"

Yes but, apologies if I'm wrong, but you're not an expert in the field of contracts/IR35 are you? QDOS and the like are.

Agencies not stupid. Not they're not but they don't care about YOUR IR35 AT ALL. All they want is the money coming in and if they can talk said contractor into signing up first off then they are certainly not stupid. They are looking after themselves not you.

"never seen a single shred of evidence".

Are you mad? If you sign a contract that clearly puts you inside IR35 then you're dead in the water surely even before you start? You are screwed. I appreciate that there is more to it, such as working practices etc, but surely if you've signed away certain things then you'd be indefensible is an IR35 case?

Its not pure faith though. Its a few quid at most and a delay, to cover oneself. Not cast iron as above but still.....

Out of interest, do you operate outside IR35 then? And, from what you've said, you just accept and sign any contract no matter what? Do you pay for QDOS, or PCGE in the event of any sort of enquiry?

[northernladuk]

I'm afraid so.

As a matter of interest there are two reasons. The first is I've never seen a contract that looks problematic to me. I deal with big agencies and they're not stupid.

Maybe but they don't care about your contract and tax situation really. They will pay lipservice to it to get contractors in but the detail is none of their concern so you are putting your faith in a group that isn't accountable or responsible which is a pretty naive thing to do really.

Two of the biggest offenders are big names. The Capita CL1 agreement was problematic for many years and Hays have a history of non compliant contracts. Old link but not the only one..
http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...acts-ir35.html

By not having it reviewed how do you really know if they are not being stupid. You are making silly assumptions. I don't have them checked therefore I know they are IR35 compliant because they are big agents??? Really????!?

The second reason is I've never seen a single shred of evidence that fiddling around with contractual terms has made one iota of difference to any IR35 outcome. Who knows - I may be wrong but I don't do things on pure faith.

If you can point me to some case that proves me wrong, believe me: I'm all ears

This is because proper contracts that have been checked and written properly stand up to scrutiny and therefore don't hit the news. HMRC has a look, takes the review in to accountant and back off. Prevention is much better than cure.

but...

Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd v HMRC (2008)

Jon Bessell provided IT consultancy services to the AA through his own company, Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd. Dragonfly's arrangements with the AA were provided through an agency, DPP International Ltd.

In the High Court Mr Bessell made four contentions:

1. Personal service/substitution

Contention: That the notional contracts would have contained provisions relating to substitution which would have prevented them from being contracts of service.

Judgement: Mr Bessell was named as the consultant in two of the lower level agreements. Dragonfly was a one-man company whose purpose was to supply Jon Bessell's services and it was therefore obvious that the intention of both parties was that it would be Mr Bessell who would provide the services.

There was a substitution clause in the lower level agreement but this could only be used where the AA had expressly agreed to it. Each notional contract would therefore have been for the services of Jon Bessell and that a replacement worker could be used only if the AA had firstly given notice that a particular substitute was acceptable.

The Special Commissioners had commented that “The AA did not want any competent tester, it wanted Mr Bessell”. The absence of an express provision in the upper level contract permitting an unfettered right of substitution further supported this statement.

QDOS et al would have failed a contract that allowed AA this. They would have had it reworded that the AA could only refuse if the candidate was wholly unacceptable or words to that effect...

So there is your evidence...

You make some truly awful points.....

[Gumbo Robot]

Hi,

So I received a contract offer through an agency after interviewing with the client a couple of weeks ago. Contract was reviewed, some minor amendments suggested, one of which had to go back to the client. I last checked the status of the amendments with the agent on 29/10/15, and he said it is still with the client's legal department.

In parallel to all this, I have been filling out paperwork for the agency, my previous employers have received reference checks, and I've signed a client NDA on 2/11/15. I have also received a detailed response to questions regarding what skills/technologies to prep for from the client through the agent (copied and pasted).

I'm not due to start for another 2 weeks, but I'm concerned I have not received the amended contract for me to sign yet and all of a sudden (past 48 hours) I'm not able to get through to anyone by phone at the agency.

I have a contact name and email address from the client who is responsible for hiring non-permanent staff, and met on the day of the interview, who I'm considering contacting to get a better idea of what the situation is and for some reassurance.

In situation I've described, would you say it would be acceptable to contact the client directly?

Thanks

That's an insanely long turnaround.

Capita involved by any chance?

[psychocandy]

Maybe but they don't care about your contract and tax situation really. They will pay lipservice to it to get contractors in but the detail is none of their concern so you are putting your faith in a group that isn't accountable or responsible which is a pretty naive thing to do really.

Two of the biggest offenders are big names. The Capita CL1 agreement was problematic for many years and Hays have a history of non compliant contracts. Old link but not the only one..
http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...acts-ir35.html

By not having it reviewed how do you really know if they are not being stupid. You are making silly assumptions. I don't have them checked therefore I know they are IR35 compliant because they are big agents??? Really????!?



This is because proper contracts that have been checked and written properly stand up to scrutiny and therefore don't hit the news. HMRC has a look, takes the review in to accountant and back off. Prevention is much better than cure.

but...



QDOS et al would have failed a contract that allowed AA this. They would have had it reworded that the AA could only refuse if the candidate was wholly unacceptable or words to that effect...

So there is your evidence...

You make some truly awful points.....

First time ever NLUK is spot on.

30 years been doing this. I dread to think how much if HMRC come calling.....

BTW. I would second that about Hays. Worlds worst contracts. And they try to throw they're weight around saying we're big, we know what we're doing etc.

[MrMarkyMark]

30 years been doing this.

30 years contracting, you surprise me

[Cirrus]

"never seen a single shred of evidence".

Are you mad? If you sign a contract that clearly puts you inside IR35 then you're dead in the water surely even before you start? You are screwed. I appreciate that there is more to it, such as working practices etc, but surely if you've signed away certain things then you'd be indefensible is an IR35 case?

You're trying to do what everyone does - use argument. What I asked for is evidence. Show me two people working side by side on Huxley contracts. Both come under attack from HMRC but one of them had B&C changes and the other didn't. The one with changes got off and the other didn't. Show me that. That would do nicely.

The reason I say this is what little I've seen over the years suggests really genuine mini-consultancies can get done whereas slam-dunk bums-on-seats contractors get off scot free. It's a lottery.

I respect QDOS etc in their ability to defend me but I doubt very much whether they can add/change words to big agency contracts that add up to anything in 'court'.

Out of interest, do you operate outside IR35 then?

I don't do the deemed salary thing if that's what you mean. I know tax is necessary and they need to spend it on all sorts of important things but personally I can't afford it what with the cost of flying, Michelin restaurants, good Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc etc .