Weak Substitution and no right of termination

[pmeswani]

Your decision. Many qualified experts would appear to disagree...

A two-way notice period is always a nice to have.... but can be seen as a pointer for IR35. (Could be wrong!). I would try and push for a mutual notice period if the contract is for a long periods of time (e.g. 12 months+). But I would agree about getting the contractor's name removed in favour of the business name.

[nomadd]

Your decision. Many qualified experts would appear to disagree...

And as I said, just as many qualified experts appear to agree. That's what experts are for, disagreeing with each other.

There is no "expert" advice surrounding IR35; that's the whole problem with it - it's so deliberately vague.

As I say, I do it (notice clause) for more than IR35 reasons. The thought that I can get out if the client turns out to be a first class a-hole means a lot to me. Twenty years of contracting have taught me that lesson.

Nomadd

[original PM]

and anyway lets be honest

if you contract does not accurately reflect your working conditions it ain't worth the paper it is written on.

any amiguiaty and HMRC will check your actual working practices and relationship with the client and make a decision based on that



probably.

[malvolio]

The best answer I've seen came from Accountax, that zero notice periods are a useful IR35 pointer - permies can't have them, and it kills one element of MOO - but not that good in business terms. Best compromise is a long on on your side and a short one on theirs.

That said, we're not here to like the client, but to deliver things. Walking away because you're not happy is pathetic. Leaving because you can't deliver what is required becuase of the client's problems is a different matter and not really subject to notice anyway.

[nomadd]

Leaving because you can't deliver what is required becuase of the client's problems is a different matter and not really subject to notice anyway.

But who ever sees it that way under termination circumstances?

The client? Certainly not: you are just a contractor, so you must be at fault.

The Agent? You must be kidding - they will try to withhold payment, blame you, force you to go back, anything in order to "protect" their client (in other words, "get their money".)

The one thing I've learnt in my years of contracting is that in those rare situations when things do turn bad, you are on your own as a contractor. Hence I prefer a contract with a clean "get out" clause - just in case I ever need it!

Cheers,

Nomadd

[icarus]

I asked the agent about dropping my personal name from the contract, but no dice. The best they will offer is something like "[my name] or another representative agreed in writing".

Taking all your replies into account, I think I will fall back on my primary IR35 defence, namely shovelling most of my earnings into my pension to make myself a less attractive target.

[nomadd]

I asked the agent about dropping my personal name from the contract, but no dice. The best they will offer is something like "[my name] or another representative agreed in writing".

Taking all your replies into account, I think I will fall back on my primary IR35 defence, namely shovelling most of my earnings into my pension to make myself a less attractive target.

The way pension funds have been mismanaged, the insane charges they incur and the inflexibility you have in accessing you own cash within them, they would be the last place I put my money.

Still, each to his own.

Nomadd

[pmeswani]

The way pension funds have been mismanaged, the insane charges they incur and the inflexibility you have in accessing you own cash within them, they would be the last place I put my money.

Still, each to his own.

Nomadd

Hence why I would recommend a SIPP. That way, the only person that can mismanage the pension is oneself.