Opting in\out

[Mailman]

Hmmmm, certainly in the area I work in, I suspect opt out = CV on bottom of pile if it is forwarded to the client at all! Probably illegal but you try proving it. Also, I'm big enough and ugly enough to fight my own corner and dont need a nanny (aka the agency regs) looking after me.

This is illegal. But then again, since when have agents been concerned with operating within the law!

Unfortunately you have to thank the PCG for giving this little gem to the agents because some do force prospective contractors to opt out. THen again, a lot of them dont even bother asking whether you want to opt in or out. Personally if the agents make noises about having to opt out then I wont bother with them.

No, you have what is in your contract with the agency which is a legal document that can be pursued through the court system.

Oh dear...how naive

Put it like this, Opting In provides "guarantees" that not only protect the money that is paid for your services BUT probably more importantly allows you to go direct or change agents at the end of your contract.

Opting In DOES NOT mean IR will consider you as being an IR35 monkey. Whether you are opted in or out if IR comes after you your opted status wont mean anything to them.

Check some of the advice from that Antsel (sp??), he's of the opinion that opting in our out doesnt mean anything for your IR35 status.

Yes you can use the courts to get any money back agents may try to keep from you BUT its gonna take a hell of a lot more effort to get that money out of them and at the end of the day you dont have the guarantees you would have if you had opted in.

Mailman

[tim123]

malvolio

which comment are you replying to?

I haven't the foggiest

tim

[tim123]

Put it like this, Opting In provides "guarantees" that not only protect the money that is paid for your services.
Mailman

No it doesn't. It merely makes contractual clauses requiring signed timesheets and prior payment by the client void. Frankly the first is hardly a great big panacea and even with an opted out contract, you should still make sure that you never agree to the second.

Whether opted in or out, if the agent doesn't pay you are still going to have to sue him and if he can't pay you are stuffed

tim

[malvolio]

Sorry Tim, which one - there's two to the OP trying (probably badly!) to help him out, one to IT "What's-a-Contract?" Agent and one rebuttal of Denny's interestingly naive idea that opting out of Agency regs takes you outside the cover of the legal system. I haven't bothered with Mailman's post because as usual he's talking bollocks about the subject. And Mindy can fight her own battles and is doing so as we speak.

For the avoidance of doubt, my position is consistently stated as being:

• Opting either way has no effect on your real or percieved IR35 status and Hector is not interested in the subject anyway
• Opting out means the contract can contain clauses and arrangements that might aid an IR35 defence assuming the contract reflects the reality (yeah, right - see the next point)
• Agnets continually fail to provide contracts varied according to your opt-in or -out status, or even contracts that reflect reality
• Mailman doesn't understand any of the above
• Denny has the odd blind spot (just like I do, of course!)
• IT Contract Agent is in the wrong job

Hope that helps

[IT contract agent]

[*]IT Contract Agent is in the wrong job

my position is consistently stated as being -

IT rec earns me plenty of money - If you have a job that will pay me as much and meaning less work then I may think I'm in the wrong job....until then guess I'll stay doing this!

[Disgusted]

my position is consistently stated as being -

IT rec earns me plenty of money - If you have a job that will pay me as much and meaning less work then I may think I'm in the wrong job....until then guess I'll stay doing this!

Do you really have a job? I mean, do you add value to anything, or do you just skim off value from those who do create wealth?

[malvolio]

No, don;t knock it, most agecy front men are resonably hard working salesmen. It's just I'd rather ost of them were selling services rather than product, and took a bit more notice of the real world.

BTW, Mr Agent, if you want to compare work/return ratios, I'm running around £120ph for a 30 hour week with two days a week at home.

[IT contract agent]

but I've got mates Mal!

[Denny]

And Mindy can fight her own battles and is doing so as we speak.

For the avoidance of doubt, my position is consistently stated as being:

• Opting either way has no effect on your real or percieved IR35 status and Hector is not interested in the subject anyway
• Opting out means the contract can contain clauses and arrangements that might aid an IR35 defence assuming the contract reflects the reality (yeah, right - see the next point)
• Agnets continually fail to provide contracts varied according to your opt-in or -out status, or even contracts that reflect reality
• Mailman doesn't understand any of the above
• Denny has the odd blind spot (just like I do, of course!)
• IT Contract Agent is in the wrong job

Hope that helps

Denny's interestingly naive idea that opting out of Agency regs takes you outside the cover of the legal system. I haven't bothered with Mailman's post because as usual he's talking bollocks about the subject.

I think that you're just being pedantic here. I didn't say that you couldn't get legal redress because you couldn't build a case, I merely pointed out that legal redress would be harder to get and considerably costly, making it not worth the hassle or expense for the likely gains, if any. To my way of thinking that is tantamount to not able to get legal redress. The DTI will not get involved in contractual issues, whether you've opted in or out.

Mailman does talk a lot of sense. He knows his stuff, just as I do.

Then you list most of the advice I have given anyway on IR35 and contracts, but are passing it off as your own thoughts and not a reflection of ours.

[tim123]

I merely pointed out that legal redress would be harder to get and considerably costly, making it not worth the hassle or expense for the likely gains, if any. To my way of thinking that is tantamount to not able to get legal redress.

Sorry, the average contractor/agency dispute is going to be circa ten thousand pounds. The idea that one might write this off because of the need to collect evidence is silly.

I'm on record as saying that I think it is pointless going to law over compensation for minor breaches (such as late payment), but ignoring complete non payment is something that everybody should fight.

tim