Cutting out the middleman, working direct?

[Paralytic]

Great for IR35, though.

Why is going direct better for IR35?

[eek]

Why is going direct better for IR35?

You may have some control over the contract as the end client knows what they are purchasing.

[jamesbrown]

Why is going direct better for IR35?

Re-read that post. It wasn’t just about going direct, rather about ad-hoc work (e.g., see SPL vs. HMRC).

[Paralytic]

Re-read that post. It wasn’t just about going direct, rather about ad-hoc work (e.g., see SPL vs. HMRC).

I did, and it is potentially ambiguous. So, going direct does not, in itself, change the profile risk that comes from IR35, but I accept the nature of such engagement may mean other mitigations can be put in place (eg ability to amend the contract).

[jamesbrown]

I did, and it is potentially ambiguous. So, going direct does not, in itself, change the profile risk that comes from IR35, but I accept the nature of such engagement may mean other mitigations can be put in place (eg ability to amend the contract).

Agree. It’s causation vs. correlation. Going direct in itself is irrelevant because the hypothetical contract ignores *all* intermediaries. However, going direct is quite often correlated with good working practices.

[eek]

Agree. It’s causation vs. correlation. Going direct in itself is irrelevant because the hypothetical contract ignores *all* intermediaries. However, going direct is quite often correlated with good working practices.

I would have thought it was simple:-

If you are going direct they are using you to solve a problem they have.

If they are using an agency they are looking at an employee type relationship to solve that problem.

Yes IR35 is an still a possible issue (as is blanket bans on PSCs) but there is clearly a better relationship provided you are on project based work (and subsequent support work is on connected to that project work).

[vwdan]

I did, and it is potentially ambiguous. So, going direct does not, in itself, change the profile risk that comes from IR35, but I accept the nature of such engagement may mean other mitigations can be put in place (eg ability to amend the contract).

Yeah, as above - I'm not implying going direct is automatically better. But, like I say, in my case all of my direct work has been ad-hoc, project by project roles with a lot more accountability on time. So downtime that isn't billable, zero equipment provided, a lot more as you'd expect of a consultant. Just better working practices and less having to manage the client and remind them I'm not their permie.

In my case, it's also involved a bit of juggling multiple clients and such. Again, not definitive in themselves (And we all know IR35 is per contract blah blah) but in my case direct is synonymous with being miles away from IR35.

The downside being stupidity like still having a weeks work of work to book in on a project that should have finished back in the summer.

[jamesbrown]

I would have thought it was simple:-

If you are going direct they are using you to solve a problem they have.

If they are using an agency they are looking at an employee type relationship to solve that problem.

Yes IR35 is an still a possible issue (as is blanket bans on PSCs) but there is clearly a better relationship provided you are on project based work (and subsequent support work is on connected to that project work).

I think we’re saying similar things. It does depend somewhat on industry as to the prevalence of agency work. You can have an agency gig with excellent working practices and a direct gig with terrible working practices, but direct gigs often come about because the company selling the services has a niche and is in control.