Hudson Agency contracts

[newbee]

Have just got a generic contract thru hudson for a gig. Contract start date is this monday, so have no time to get contract reviewed and negotiate terms tomorrow.

So wondering if anybody here worked with them before, how are the contracts in terms of ir35. Some of the clause ring red for being ir35 caught as below

a)to perform the Services at the Contract Site or
such other premises as the Client or the Third Party
may reasonably direct

(iii) to furnish the Client, Third Party and/or Hudson
with any progress reports as may be requested from
time to time;

13(a), the Contractor shall give Hudson, the Client or
Third Party reasonable notice of the proposed
substitution including the name and details of the
new Representative/s. The Contractor will also agree
with Hudson, the Client or Third Party a reasonable
overlap period during which the Contractor shall
ensure that the substitute Representative/s fully
understands the requirements and progress made in
providing the Services. The Contractor may not
charge for any agreed lead in time.
14. (i) The Contractor acknowledges to Hudson
(iv) subject to clause 13, not to sub-contract or assign
to any third party any of the Services which it is
required to perform under this Agreement;
(v) to notify Hudson forthwith in writing if it should

[BolshieBastard]

Sounds pretty water tight direction and control to me. Not good for ir35.

Still, its either accept it or decline unless you can get things changed before monday.

[thunderlizard]

There's always time to check the terms. Nobody's going to go into receivership if you don't start on the Monday. Spend the first couple of days next week checking and finalising the contract. I'm sure the agency would rather wait a couple of days than risk the deal over IR35 contract wording.

[malvolio]

Talk to Bauer and Cottrill tomorrow. They will turn you round in time if you ask nicely.

FWIW and strictly IMHO those clauses are too fettered to be any use, so no RoS; for one thing they cannot insist on an overlap, the whole point is that the subbiie is equally skilled and able to do the work.

Now go look for D&C

[zippo]

Hey,

I have just had my Hudson contract reviewd by Bauer and Cottrill. They only took one day to get the contract reviewed, (great stuff).

Bauer and Cottrill suggested a amendment be made to the contract which has now been accepted by Hudson. I would suggest speaking to Bauer and Cottrill today and see if they can review for you so you know wher you stand.

[newbee]

Hey,

I have just had my Hudson contract reviewd by Bauer and Cottrill. They only took one day to get the contract reviewed, (great stuff).

Bauer and Cottrill suggested a amendment be made to the contract which has now been accepted by Hudson. I would suggest speaking to Bauer and Cottrill today and see if they can review for you so you know wher you stand.

I just got contract reviewed through qdos freelance club, they have actually come back and said in there words ' have reviewed the agreement and can confirm that it is, in our opinion, IR35 compliant. There are no major problems and it contains most of the key, IR35-friendly criteria.' I thougth the ros and moo where really vague clause on contract ?

So confused a bit now, Zippo will pm you regarding the clause changes .

[P1mpAndPr0ud]

A contractor of mine had a lot of (seemingly) duff advice from Qdos - saying that the only way to be outside IR35 was with co-lateral contracts, seperate documents for the contracotr and LtdCo, NO mention of contractor's name anywhere on ANY of the paperwork (inclding that which related directly to the contractor) and schedules of work. They confused the h*ll out of our legal people! We've got over 1,000 contractors on site, and this was (apparantley) by far the most complicated set of amendments they'd ever seen.

I'm no legal eagle, but probably best avoided...?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Just one thing to remember Newbee - the contract must be an accurate reflection of the working arrangements that you have with the client

[Qdos Contractor]

A contractor of mine had a lot of (seemingly) duff advice from Qdos - saying that the only way to be outside IR35 was with co-lateral contracts, seperate documents for the contracotr and LtdCo, NO mention of contractor's name anywhere on ANY of the paperwork (inclding that which related directly to the contractor) and schedules of work. They confused the h*ll out of our legal people! We've got over 1,000 contractors on site, and this was (apparantley) by far the most complicated set of amendments they'd ever seen.

I'm no legal eagle, but probably best avoided...?

All contracts are reviewed by our tax consultants who have extensive experience in dealing with (and winning) IR35 enquiries. I don't know how that can be described as 'duff advice'. If a consultant is comfortable that they could defend the contract they will deem it a pass; if not they will fail it and recommend amendments. Unfortunately we can't help it if we confuse an agency's legal department. This tends to happen quite frequently due to a lack of tax knowledge with agents, especially if they've been programmed to tell their contractors that the terms and conditions are IR35 compliant.

Of course, much of IR35 is down to personal opinion, so the specific points mentioned in reviews may differ from consultant to consultant or firm to firm. Most Hudson contracts have good control (5c) and substitution (13a) clauses.

[Accountax Consulting]

The key to ensuring contracts are not caught by IR35, and double checking your advisers are correct, is keeping up to date with all the latest case law.

For IR35 contractors, it is also vitally important to check the contract being issued is for a limited company contractor, and not simply a contract for the supply of an individual issued to a limited company.

While contractors do not have time to trawl through case law, there have been a significant number of recent cases worth noting (which would be well worth a read).

A clear and concise (and easy to read) case is First Word Software which clearly details the lack of personal service, lack of control and lack of mutuality of obligations requirements.