Contract offered with no interview

[biergarten]

yeah, sorry for not posting a follow-up.

I started on the day expected and from the first day I could see it was ok, or at least like any other contract I had previously. Although I went a bit paranoid as from the second day in my "one-week interview" I was placed in a team all integrated by consultants of the same external company. but they are fine, lol.

at the end i have monthly payment terms, for a proper happy close have to wait till around the 10th of march

[GhostofTarbera]

yeah, sorry for not posting a follow-up.

I started on the day expected and from the first day I could see it was ok, or at least like any other contract I had previously. Although I went a bit paranoid as from the second day in my "one-week interview" I was placed in a team all integrated by consultants of the same external company. but they are fine, lol.

at the end i have monthly payment terms, for a proper happy close have to wait till around the 10th of march

Inside IR35 tastic


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[biergarten]

Inside IR35 tastic


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

what?

[northernladuk]

what?

You'll be treated as an employee of the consultancy when working for the client site and it's highly likely the consultancy will also treat you like a permie while you are as well. You'll be doing exactly the same as their perms and you'll all be expected to perform in the same way so SDC, no subs etc. Not a good IR35 position.

[biergarten]

You'll be treated as an employee of the consultancy when working for the client site and it's highly likely the consultancy will also treat you like a permie while you are as well. You'll be doing exactly the same as their perms and you'll all be expected to perform in the same way so SDC, no subs etc. Not a good IR35 position.

mmm, strange, i don't see the danger with the consultancy.

i see it as a project with two consultancy firms working side-by-side, one of them is a one-man company. In fact, I realised the consultancy company sees me as a client employee, as for example I have a client email, contrary to the consultants (and in my paranoia, i think that could have saved my ass). And the consultancy company have their own architect and decision makers not integrated in the team, but that any consultant member of the team has to go through them to communicate with the client company. Not my case, I just ignore them.

pd - on a side note, once the ir35 legislation applies, as it is up to the client companies to declare the in/out status if they say a contract is out, that's? even if they do it wrongly, not my problem retroactively, or?

[Lance]

I just ignore them.

ignoring somebody is not something you can evidence that they have no influence, either contractually or in practise, over you and your work.

[Fraidycat]

You'll be treated as an employee of the consultancy when working for the client site and it's highly likely the consultancy will also treat you like a permie while you are as well. You'll be doing exactly the same as their perms and you'll all be expected to perform in the same way so SDC, no subs etc. Not a good IR35 position.

I presume he has no contractual relationship with the external consultancy. His contract is with the client.
The other consultancy just happens to be onsite at the same time.

Unless the OP has been told to by the client that his work is being managed by the consultancy, is subject to their control, this all seems irrelevant to me.

[PerfectStorm]

Agencies having multiple contractors onsite is no biggie, it's very common and no cause for concern

There are some people offering bad advice in this thread - usually best to do the exact opposite of what they say for a happy and fulfilling contracting career

And yes, your client will determine your status from April - it won't automatically cause a problem retroactively, but that alone shouldn't be the reason you're not covered. Did you get a contract review and have you got IPSE Plus?

If you didn't get the review take that as a lesson for next time (I didn't get my first one reviewed either after accepting the recruiter line that "they don't make changes", something I've since learnt was bollocks) - but you can still get IPSE+.

[eek]

Agencies having multiple contractors onsite is no biggie, it's very common and no cause for concern

There are some people offering bad advice in this thread - usually best to do the exact opposite of what they say for a happy and fulfilling contracting career

And yes, your client will determine your status from April - it won't automatically cause a problem retroactively, but that alone shouldn't be the reason you're not covered. Did you get a contract review and have you got IPSE Plus?

If you didn't get the review take that as a lesson for next time (I didn't get my first one reviewed either after accepting the recruiter line that "they don't make changes", something I've since learnt was bollocks - but you can still get IPSE+.

Says someone who thinks IPSE actually offers anything useful to a contractor beyond expensive access to Perkbox.

Could you actually point out what advice you think is wrong as you haven't actually said anything beyond the opinion of some people (who I won't mention) is wrong and it's very likely that other people have already done more to contradict them than you have.

[PerfectStorm]

Says someone who thinks IPSE actually offers anything useful to a contractor beyond expensive access to Perkbox.

I speak as someone who was successfully defended in two investigations as part of the IPSE services a years Perkbox is the sweetener and means it pays for itself even in years when the revenue aren't causing hassle.