New contract - absense approval - IR35?

[imightbewrong]

Just reading through the contract for a new role - it's a Computer People contract - I am going direct - one bit which looks a bit weird is that any time off needs to be approved in advance by the Client *and* Computer People. Do either or both of these look bad for IR35 status? I'm going to get it reviewed, but this stuck out at me.

[northernladuk]

I don't think it is unreasonable to advice your paying clients when you are not going to be working to be honest. Wouldn't be much of a relationship if the consultant just disappreared off the face of the earth for 10 days without saying anything.

I would say this would be a wooly one and part of the whole reason why it is so difficult to argue in or out. What they don't say is what they mean by approve. You say I will be off next week for 5 days, they say ok. Job sorted you have approval. I don't see any client direction in that and it is just common courtesy IMO.

I will argue on the side that approval does not mean direction so would say nothing wrong with it for IR35... Now if there are other points and it starts to stack up then the situation might change.....

[imightbewrong]

Yep totally agree with that - I guess I was more concerened about the agency needing to approve - seemed a bit weird.

The contract overall doesn't make me feel warm inside. There is no specific substitution clause, although there is implicit talk of it, and that the client can reject anyone who is incompetant.

[Spacecadet]

You could try and change it to something like:

The Consultancy reserves the right to suspend services on occasion up to x days per annum pro rata. Such suspension of services will not impede the ability of The Consultancy to provide services on days which are necessary for the proper delivery of the consultancy services.

Or in plain english:
Any days off will be at a time convienient for the client and you won't be bunking off on go live day!

It might be a bit long winded but it removes the explicit approval needed clause from the contract whilst still maintaining service delivery agreements

[Hex]

Just reading through the contract for a new role - it's a Computer People contract - I am going direct - one bit which looks a bit weird is that any time off needs to be approved in advance by the Client *and* Computer People. Do either or both of these look bad for IR35 status? I'm going to get it reviewed, but this stuck out at me.

I'd say that either of them look bad. They effectively mean you have Mutuality of Obligation. You are obliged to turn up to work.

[centurian]

I'd say that either of them look bad. They effectively mean you have Mutuality of Obligation. You are obliged to turn up to work.

Neither are showstoppers to IR35, but they will have a negative impact. You can apply damage limitiation - in fact, you can manage the damage down considerably by rewording etc.

But whatever you do - it will always be worse than if the clauses weren't there in the first place.

[BolshieBastard]

Just reading through the contract for a new role - it's a Computer People contract - I am going direct - one bit which looks a bit weird is that any time off needs to be approved in advance by the Client *and* Computer People. Do either or both of these look bad for IR35 status? I'm going to get it reviewed, but this stuck out at me.

How can you be going direct with a CP contract and, where you have to have approval from the client and CP of absence!? How does that work?

[stillooking]

How can you be going direct with a CP contract and, where you have to have approval from the client and CP of absence!? How does that work?

doesn't make sense to me either. I've found that std. computer people contracts are generally within IR35 nowadays.

[imightbewrong]

Thanks guys - I have sent it for review - let's see what comes back.

Regarding being direct - I might not be using the correct term - I did not get this job through an agent, but through a contact - I negotiated a rate with the manager directly - there wasn't even an advertised role available at the time, but they wanted me to work for them. So in this sense there was no agency. However, the (big) company uses Computer People for all contractors for management/billing, whoever they came in through. I assume this is similar to Hays? In my current role the chain is me -> agent -> hays -> client.

[stillooking]

Thanks guys - I have sent it for review - let's see what comes back.

Regarding being direct - I might not be using the correct term - I did not get this job through an agent, but through a contact - I negotiated a rate with the manager directly - there wasn't even an advertised role available at the time, but they wanted me to work for them. So in this sense there was no agency. However, the (big) company uses Computer People for all contractors for management/billing, whoever they came in through. I assume this is similar to Hays? In my current role the chain is me -> agent -> hays -> client.

Well, I see you did sell yr services directly,it's a pity you couldn't get onboard via a direct agreement with the client, for example a csltcy contract would've done the job - it may been difficult to persuade people there but that's the ideal scenario, and there will be people in the co. that operate via this type of arrangement.