Work in Banking? Don't worry about the blanket ban you were probably inside all along

[Paralytic]

Would it be fair to say PM ( or Product Owner or whatever faddy title is en vogue today ) is a higher risk category than say a developer due to the nature of the role lending itself to tighter client integration unless you're very, very careful in both contract terms and working practices?

Ignoring the fact that PM and PO are completely different roles, in most organisations I've been in, the contract developers have been more aligned to the employed developers (try to stop the difference!) than the PMs.

It looks like Nationwide truly threw this contractor under the bus by effectively saying they treated him like an employee. So, its not your working practices that are important, it what the client thinks (and says) your working practices are.

[Antman]

What in the next 32 days before the new rules kick in on April 6th and all banks adopt blanket bans on PSCs to avoid risk...

Thank you great help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[northernladuk]

I'm looking at this chap's linkedin profile as we speak.

In 12 years as a contractor, he only ever worked for 2 clients, both banks, with the longest stint being over 5 years.

Permietractor gets what permietractor deserves.

Loads of people are in the same situation at my current client (bank also). Fun times coming...

But he's now also potentially shafted many other contractors trying to act like contractors if anyone uses this as case law.

If permiecontractors got what permiecontractors deserved we might not have needed April2020.

[BrilloPad]

But he's now also potentially shafted many other contractors trying to act like contractors if anyone uses this as case law.

If permiecontractors got what permiecontractors deserved we might not have needed April2020.

HMRC were always going to go for it.

[abz2020]

MOO is not a weak indicator IMO.
But it could be in two varieties:

1. No MOO to extend the contract beyond the end of the current contract or you to accept such extension.

2. No MOO to provide work to you for every day during the current contract or you to be working every day.

I think 2 is a good indicator (along with paid only for days worked clause) for outside IR35.

[SimonMac]

Failed on all three:

166. On balance, I find that the hypothetical contracts required by the Intermediaries
Legislation between Mr Lee and Nationwide would be ones of employment. Accordingly,
this appeal is dismissed

Can he go back and ask for three years of holiday pay?

[abz2020]

But he's now also potentially shafted many other contractors trying to act like contractors if anyone uses this as case law.

I wonder who would that anyone be? Ohh wait.

[perplexed]

Ignoring the fact that PM and PO are completely different roles, in most organisations I've been in, the contract developers have been more aligned to the employed developers (try to stop the difference!) than the PMs.

It looks like Nationwide truly threw this contractor under the bus by effectively saying they treated him like an employee. So, its not your working practices that are important, it what the client thinks (and says) your working practices are.

I was more thinking along the lines of being engaged to develop a specific part of Project X as per statement of work. Chances are with a properly written contract that's not necessarily something aimed at lasting years, can be short term. In terms of integration, pushing to a CI/CD pipeline shouldn't cause much of a problem whereas PMs are more embedded ithin business imo.

Sounds like his working practices were inside from what I've read. If the client thinks your working practices are inside and contractor makes zero attempt to correct, then contractor is at major risk because they are engaging in working practices outside contractual terms. I've had this with a contract where client demanded my company perform support services, at no time mentioned during procurement process. When it was pointed out support services were outside terms of contract, that they would need to provide further information about the nature of the support required and contract amendment / new contract in place, was terminated. Now, I've no worries about an IR35 issue due to my company working as per contract and NOT additional duties - so client expectations which different to expected working practices not followed plus clear financial risk demonstrated.

All the above is obviously my opinion and probably will be picked apart by greater minds than mine.

[northernladuk]

MOO is not a weak indicator IMO.
But it could be in two varieties:

1. No MOO to extend the contract beyond the end of the current contract or you to accept such extension.

2. No MOO to provide work to you for every day during the current contract or you to be working every day.

I think 2 is a good indicator (along with paid only for days worked clause) for outside IR35.

We are looking for lack of MoO which means the there is no obligation to provide further work AFTER the work contracted has finished. This is where long term contractors can look bad. Ask a PM two or three years on and most would be lying if they said they didn't expect to be given another project.

While in contract there are obligations as set out in the contract.

I don't think item 2 has much relevance or is much of a defense for MoO.. Or lack thereof.

[eek]

Can he go back and ask for three years of holiday pay?

If only we had a poster on here who could tell him what needed to be done repeatedly even when completely irrelevant. (thankfully we don't anymore)..