Hours per day/week

[dx4100]

Hi All

The client is expecting me to do 7.5 hours a days and at least 37.5 hours per week work for them... Although the actually start and end times are totally up to me....within reason....aka they expect to see me around during the day....Is this going to blow up my IR35 rating ?

They dont tell me how to do the work etc but this seems to me like a certain amount of control ?? How does this work in regarrds to IR35..

Cheers

[malvolio]

It's not good, but it's not fatal. After all, you're supposed to be delivering things, not supplying manpower.

You could try to lose the 7.5 hour day requirement, unless you're doing something that requires close contact with the business or your co-workers to do the job - in which case it's justified and neutral wrt IR35.

[dx4100]

It's not good, but it's not fatal. After all, you're supposed to be delivering things, not supplying manpower.

You could try to lose the 7.5 hour day requirement, unless you're doing something that requires close contact with the business or your co-workers to do the job - in which case it's justified and neutral wrt IR35.

I can easily get them to drop the 7.5 hour a day requirement. The 37.5 a week requirement would be harder. Do you think the weekly time required is safer ?

They basically want to make sure stuff is being done....which is understandable.... I also cant do the projects they want unless I have access to there staff for requirement gathering etc... So I do need to work somewhat closely with the client....

[NotAllThere]

I had a client with a requirement that I be in the office a set number of hours. When I pointed out that if I don't have work to do, I'm not going to hang around the office charging for being present, and that this would save them money, they soon dropped the requirement.

I think the requirement that "the work gets done" is covered by "officious bystander"; it's pretty obvious that it's a requirement, otherwise why would they hire you?

[dx4100]

I had a client with a requirement that I be in the office a set number of hours. When I pointed out that if I don't have work to do, I'm not going to hang around the office charging for being present, and that this would save them money, they soon dropped the requirement.

I think the requirement that "the work gets done" is covered by "officious bystander"; it's pretty obvious that it's a requirement, otherwise why would they hire you?

Yeah I see your point....

They do actually trust me to do the work... They are just dotting i's and crossing the t's....

Ok swapping this on its head....

If there wasn’t anything in the contract about this and I actually did 7.5 hours a day and 37.5 hours a week...every week....would I get done on the working practices side....or is it now become a weak argument on the HMRC side ?

I actually prefer to work a structured working week as it makes sure I get my sorry arse out of bed and puts a bit of routine into my week...(although in reality I sometimes don’t start till 11am and work from home etc )... This isn’t just me trying to avoid IR35...its actually how i prefer to work

Its funny all these issue over control...when in fact the HMRC are controlling me more than the client could ever control me

[malvolio]

Nothing wrong with you working a regular day - provided it's you that determines what it is. Equally, if you're in support for example, you would have to be there for the same hours as the users, whether you are perm or contractor, so that is also neutral in that it applies to everyone in that role.

Also, of course, it's not unreasonable for the client to expect a certain amount of work over the week in return for your charges. It's only if the contract states you will be there between given hours for no good business-related reason that it's a D&C issue.

[dx4100]

Nothing wrong with you working a regular day - provided it's you that determines what it is. Equally, if you're in support for example, you would have to be there for the same hours as the users, whether you are perm or contractor, so that is also neutral in that it applies to everyone in that role.

Also, of course, it's not unreasonable for the client to expect a certain amount of work over the week in return for your charges. It's only if the contract states you will be there between given hours for no good business-related reason that it's a D&C issue.

Excellent...thanks for the advice

[b0redom]

Talk to your boss about time off in lieu? I keep an exact record of hours I work - my day rate says 7.5 hours / day. I usually acrue a couple of hours / week, which means days off in lieu.

If the revenue come calling, I have detailed records which prove I control when I work.

[Billy Pilgrim]

Talk to your boss about time off in lieu? I keep an exact record of hours I work - my day rate says 7.5 hours / day. I usually acrue a couple of hours / week, which means days off in lieu.

If the revenue come calling, I have detailed records which prove I control when I work.

Sounds to me very much like you have detailed records so can show your BOSS that you have worked the EXPECTED 37.5 hrs per week.

Sounds to me that there is an awful lot of control of how you work there mind!!

Time in lieu is a permy concept -- SURELY !!

[ft101]

I never fully understood this concept of a daily rate where there is no specific project deliverable or in other words, where the deliverable is a service or function.

If a person is providing a service, say a Sys Admin or similar, then they are surely providing man hours and skills, no? Therefore it is surely reasonable to specify times and duration that the services should be available for.

For a developer, its slightly different in that the remit is more project or deliverable based, but even then unless the developer is working in isolation (rare) then its reasonable to apply some expectation of availability.

I'm new to all this, but to me it seems that paying a daily (or hourly) rate and not specifying availability is contradictory?