Want to break current contract to work elsewhere

[SueEllen]

You're right. In the real-world, 99% of contractor's RoS clauses are a sham as the client would never entertain the idea of another person coming in under the same contract (that's why, at the beginning, the client interviews YOU and asks about YOUR personal skills and ability to do the job, not whether your "Limited" can do the job).

In your experience.

If the client already knows the sub, or you use two people from the beginning then this isn't an issue.

[billybiro]

In your experience.

If the client already knows the sub, or you use two people from the beginning then this isn't an issue.

Yes, mine and the vast majority of other people's experiences, if the posts on here and many other places on the internet as well as the conversations I have with numerous other contractor colleagues in the real world are anything to go by.

I'd love to be proven wrong on this, and would love to know of this long list of clients who are more than willing to engage with a one-man band PSC and fully allow a real RoS clause to be enforced without batting an eyelid, but I'm still waiting for the evidence.

[SueEllen]

Yes, mine and the vast majority of other people's experiences, if the posts on here and many other places on the internet as well as the conversations I have with numerous other contractor colleagues in the real world are anything to go by.

I'd love to be proven wrong on this, and would love to know of this long list of clients who are more than willing to engage with a one-man band PSC and fully allow a real RoS clause to be enforced without batting an eyelid, but I'm still waiting for the evidence.

Read my second sentence - gives you a clue of what clients are happy to accept.

[billybiro]

Read my second sentence - gives you a clue of what clients are happy to accept.

I did read your second sentence.

Again, the experience of most people is that the client will not accept a "proper" RoS situation. Some (i.e. a small minority) clients will accept a substitute if either a) the sub is well known to the client or they (the client) is able and willing to perform extensive due diligence of the proposed sub and find them fit to do the job (and many clients will go through these motions only to say that the sub isn't fit to do the job as they simply don't want a different person doing the job).

Most (i.e. the vast majority) of clients simply won't entertain the notion of a different person coming on site to them as part of a contract that (in the client's eyes) was awarded to YOU, personally.

Again, this is why clients interview YOU personally to ascertain YOUR skill and ability to do the job, not your Limited's ability to do the job. It's also why most clients, some on the surface but more deep down, see contractors as nothing more than "temporary permies". It's why most of the time you're required to be a bum on a seat (like the permies), largely toe the line regarding office policies - start/end times etc. (like the permies) and expected to get involved in all sorts of office meetings/training/pep talks etc. (like the permies).

Here's a test. Let's say you're a C#/.NET Developer (replace the relevant skills with whatever you do). Next contract, when speaking to either the agent or the client explain to them that you have absolutely ZERO skills required for the job, but that YOU, personally, are not going to be doing the job. You're talking to the agent and being "interviewed" by the client in the capacity of director and representative of your Limited only. You tell the agent/client that when they award you the contract (hmm, yeah!) you'll supply a suitable person (whom the client and agent will have never met before) for the work. Try that out and let me know how you get on.

[SueEllen]

I did read your second sentence.

Again, the experience of most people is that the client will not accept a "proper" RoS situation. Some (i.e. a small minority) clients will accept a substitute if either a) the sub is well known to the client or they (the client) is able and willing to perform extensive due diligence of the proposed sub and find them fit to do the job (and many clients will go through these motions only to say that the sub isn't fit to do the job as they simply don't want a different person doing the job).

Most (i.e. the vast majority) of clients simply won't entertain the notion of a different person coming on site to them as part of a contract that (in the client's eyes) was awarded to YOU, personally.

Again, this is why clients interview YOU personally to ascertain YOUR skill and ability to do the job, not your Limited's ability to do the job. It's also why most clients, some on the surface but more deep down, see contractors as nothing more than "temporary permies". It's why most of the time you're required to be a bum on a seat (like the permies), largely toe the line regarding office policies - start/end times etc. (like the permies) and expected to get involved in all sorts of office meetings/training/pep talks etc. (like the permies).

Here's a test. Let's say you're a C#/.NET Developer (replace the relevant skills with whatever you do). Next contract, when speaking to either the agent or the client explain to them that you have absolutely ZERO skills required for the job, but that YOU, personally, are not going to be doing the job. You're talking to the agent and being "interviewed" by the client in the capacity of director and representative of your Limited only. You tell the agent/client that when they award you the contract (hmm, yeah!) you'll supply a suitable person (whom the client and agent will have never met before) for the work. Try that out and let me know how you get on.

Consultancies both small and large do that with their direct clients.

The client normally then wants to meet you and in some of those meetings they definitely don't ask you about how you can do the work.

However you only find such roles by networking.

[billybiro]

Consultancies both small and large do that with their direct clients.

The client normally then wants to meet you and in some of those meetings they definitely don't ask you about how you can do the work.

However you only find such roles by networking.

You're misconstruing my words.

You're talking about genuine, bona-fide consultancies. I don't disagree with you that this is exactly the kind of thing that happens in genuine consultancies, especially the bigger ones.

I'm talking about the average contractor, working as a one-man (or occasionally two-man) band behind a Limited PSC, which most of us on here conform to. Genuine "consultancies" we be not. Such contractors will virtually never be able to do as I said in my previous post, even if such contractors are working for an end-client via a consultancy. The consultancy will have the RoS with the end-client, but the contractor's contract is with either the consultancy or the agency. They almost certainly won't have a genuine RoS with the agency/consultancy.

I have an increasing feeling that you know this, but are being purposely obtuse and changing what I've said in an obvious strawman to attempt to debunk my original assertion.