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

[LetterBox]

If you are concered about it then surely that is totally the wrong approach. Assume nothing, understand and investigate. Assume all that sounds more like your standard tickbox permietractor approach.

But yes, always get evidence, but again, understand what the evidence gives you and why you need to keep it.

Assuming everything has equal weight is fine, as it equates to assuming nothing.

[eek]

Assuming everything has equal weight is fine, as it equates to assuming nothing.

You just need 1 piece of evidence the tribunal accepts - we just don't know what that piece of evidence could be.

[dsc]

Let's look at the contract and a finance contract in regards to the judgement:-

SDC - Mr Lee had in practicea considerable degree of operational and personal autonomy but was subject to overarchingcontrols primarily concerned with Nationwide’s need as a highly regulated business to monitor the progress of the relevant project consistent with Mr Lee being a highly skilledemployee. However, Mr Lee could not be moved to a different project without his consent

MoO - There was a mutuality of obligation between the parties but only within each contract (it's enough).

How is this different to any other contract anywhere else? surely every client monitors work to some extent. Wasn't SDC about being told how to do work at any point in the process?

MoO within each contract - this is based on what? is this like RoS now, that to prove there is no MoO you have to effectively leave with no notice half way through the contract just to say there is no MoO?

[jamesbrown]

How is this different to any other contract anywhere else? surely every client monitors work to some extent. Wasn't SDC about being told how to do work at any point in the process?

I think it just points to control being more contentious for a highly skilled contractor (which, I agree, applies to many or most of us). To turn control away from a neutral to being a positive, you need to have more control than an equivalent permie. Remember that specialist permies have a reasonable degree of control.

MoO within each contract - this is based on what? is this like RoS now, that to prove there is no MoO you have to effectively leave with no notice half way through the contract just to say there is no MoO?

No, it means that neither party is obligated to offer work or to accept work during the contract. Examples might be business interruption where contractors are given no work and permies take up the slack or a project getting canned or the contractor refusing to take additional work, not already contracted for completion.

[northernladuk]

Assuming everything has equal weight is fine, as it equates to assuming nothing.

Ahhhhh. Gotcha. I was thinking assuming your pass has contractor on it has equal weighting with an actual substitution etc...

[Pring]

How many people have a CoA and can you be sure the right person has signed it so it will stand up in court. I'd imagine 90+% of the few CoAs out there won't stand up.

My understanding of the purpose of a CoA is that it isn't to be used in court but at the first stage of an enquiry when HMRC is still fishing for info. The CoA may be enough to put them off progressing it further since if the client is willing to put that down on paper then presumably they'd say the same when questioned directly. As you'll be aware though, that's often not the case so it may just be ignored these days. No harm in having one though, and at the least it's proof that you took reasonable steps to confirm understanding with the client.

[northernladuk]

My understanding of the purpose of a CoA is that it isn't to be used in court but at the first stage of an enquiry when HMRC is still fishing for info. The CoA may be enough to put them off progressing it further since if the client is willing to put that down on paper then presumably they'd say the same when questioned directly. As you'll be aware though, that's often not the case so it may just be ignored these days. No harm in having one though, and at the least it's proof that you took reasonable steps to confirm understanding with the client.

In that context absolutely!

[dsc]

I think it just points to control being more contentious for a highly skilled contractor (which, I agree, applies to many or most of us). To turn control away from a neutral to being a positive, you need to have more control than an equivalent permie. Remember that specialist permies have a reasonable degree of control.

Fine but so far doing everything on your own independently was enough to prove lack of SDC, are we saying this is not enough now? And that someone asking you how it's going is somehow control?

No, it means that neither party is obligated to offer work or to accept work during the contract. Examples might be business interruption where contractors are given no work and permies take up the slack or a project getting canned or the contractor refusing to take additional work, not already contracted for completion.

Again, fine and this is how I assumed MoO works, but what if none of those interruptions actually happen? Say you get a contract for a month, there's enough work for a month and you don't can it for a month, but instead complete the work, is this now MoO? HMRC can claim the same bulltulip like with RoS, that just because it's in the contract isn't enough. What if the client say they could've moved you to smth else if they wanted?

[eek]

Fine but so far doing everything on your own independently was enough to prove lack of SDC, are we saying this is not enough now? And that someone asking you how it's going is somehow control?



Again, fine and this is how I assumed MoO works, but what if none of those interruptions actually happen? Say you get a contract for a month, there's enough work for a month and you don't can it for a month, but instead complete the work, is this now MoO? HMRC can claim the same bulltulip like with RoS, that just because it's in the contract isn't enough. What if the client say they could've moved you to smth else if they wanted?

Why do you think everyone is issuing blanket - No more PSC rules - companies see the slippery slope for what it is and won't (and can't) take the risk..

[northernladuk]

Fine but so far doing everything on your own independently was enough to prove lack of SDC, are we saying this is not enough now? And that someone asking you how it's going is somehow control?



Again, fine and this is how I assumed MoO works, but what if none of those interruptions actually happen? Say you get a contract for a month, there's enough work for a month and you don't can it for a month, but instead complete the work, is this now MoO? HMRC can claim the same bulltulip like with RoS, that just because it's in the contract isn't enough. What if the client say they could've moved you to smth else if they wanted?

That's Direction and Control. MoO is the obligation to give work. Different.