Expenses NOT included

[SueEllen]

I have read the above again and it occurs to me that the client may sign off the expenses. I would read this wording as "Client to sign off expenses". This does not state Client "pay" expenses? So my understanding is that client signs off agent pays .

Have you invoiced your expenses?

The contract will have a clause in it that says the agency will pay the expenses.

If it doesn't then the agency can refuse to pay them.

[pimped]

.....Regardless of what you think the clause means do you have it written in the contract that the agency or client will pay the expenses for you?

If not, then you cannot claim them from the agency or client.

.

...

Thank you kindly for your opinion.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the relevant part of the legislation

..(2) Neither an agency nor an employment business may arrange for a work-seeker to take up a position other than as the hirer’s employee (within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996(1)) if in order to take up that position the work-seeker must occupy accommodation other than his home, unless the conditions in paragraph (3) are satisfied.

...And this is para 3 ...(3)[/B] The conditions referred to in paragraph (2) are that the agency or employment business has taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that—(a)suitable accommodation will be available for the work-seeker before he starts work;
(b)the work-seeker has been provided with details of the accommodation referred to in sub-paragraph (a), including the terms on which it is offered and any cost to the work-seeker; and
(c)suitable arrangements have been made for the work-seeker to travel to such accommodation.[/B]

An agent cannot contract out of current legislation, I understand, unless things in the UK have drastically deteriorated in the past few years.

I cannot seem to find the clause that states the above is specific to agricultural workers. Please can you let me know where to find? Many thanks.

Any contract contracting out of current legislation would be an illegal contract, I believe.

[pimped]

Expenses not included

The contract will have a clause in it that says the agency will pay the expenses.

If it doesn't then the agency can refuse to pay them.

Hi again. I would refer to the legislation that states these things must be agreed upfront.

I wonder if the contract states where the accommodation is, how much it costs and who pays? This would be the required information according to the legislation, I believe.

[SueEllen]

...

An agent cannot contract out of current legislation, I understand, unless things in the UK have drastically deteriorated in the past few years.

Read my post again.

The legislation doesn't not state that the agency should pay for the workers accommodation and travel expenses.

You claimed this in your previous post that the agency should pay your expenses but it doesn't say in the legislation they should do.

This means that it should state in your contract that they are going to pay your expenses.

If it doesn't state in the contract that they are going to pay the expenses, then you can ask them for it and they can refuse to pay it.

Any contract contracting out of current legislation would be an illegal contract, I believe.

Contractors can opt-out of the regulations. So if you signed a valid opt-out then the employment business can supply a contract that doesn't have to comply with the regulations.

I cannot seem to find the clause that states the above is specific to agricultural workers. Please can you let me know where to find?

The agency regulations where introduced to protect all types of temporary workers. The temporary workers that require the most protection in law are the low paid ones this is because when you are on low pay you are unlikely to be able to afford a solicitor. However by default higher paid temporary workers which includes freelancers and contractors are covered by these regulations.

Regardless of how much you are paid it's up to you as a worker to read everything given to you. If you don't understand a contract, don't like some of the clauses in the contract or think clauses are missing then you should seek further advice to protect and enforce your rights.

[Ignis Fatuus]

....(2) Neither an agency nor an employment business may arrange for a work-seeker to take up a position other than as the hirer’s employee (within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996(1)) if in order to take up that position the work-seeker must occupy accommodation other than his home, unless the conditions in paragraph (3) are satisfied.

But the OP has said nothing about "must occupy accommodation other than his home". If he chooses to have a home that is not near the place of work, and because of that decision, has to find temporary accommodation nearer the place of work, that is his choice: he is not being required to occupy accommodation other than his home, he merely finds it practical to do so.

[pimped]

Expenses not included

But the OP has said nothing about "must occupy accommodation other than his home". If he chooses to have a home that is not near the place of work, and because of that decision, has to find temporary accommodation nearer the place of work, that is his choice: he is not being required to occupy accommodation other than his home, he merely finds it practical to do so.

Misunderstanding, I believe.

I was referring to working abroad. It is a necessity to live away from home if you are working in a different country? This is not a mere practicality it is a necessity?

As I understand it, if an Agent makes contact, asks if person willing to contract abroad, suggests expenses will be paid as an inducement to take up contract. Then before worker or contractor goes abroad, details of accommodation who provides and who pays including expenses must be outlined in the contract, according to legislation? If those details are omitted it does not mean that worker has opted out, merely that the contract is not compliant with legislation, I understand.

Is it written somewhere that this is not the case?

Pimped

[TheFaQQer]

I was referring to working abroad. It is a necessity to live away from home if you are working in a different country? This is not a mere practicality it is a necessity?

I know plenty of people who live in northern France and commute by train to London, and I know people who live in Kent who commute to France for work.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Misunderstanding, I believe.

I was referring to working abroad. It is a necessity to live away from home if you are working in a different country? This is not a mere practicality it is a necessity?

No, you could still move home, to the country of work - you might not want to, but you could: therefore you are not "required to live in accommodation other than your own home", just to move your home. I am not kidding, this is exactly what HMRC will tell you if you say that you are going to work in Switzerland and you will therefore have to be technically employed by a Swiss company: they will then tell you that your place of work is in Switzerland, so you can be expected to live somewhere accessible to your workplace: therefore travel between there and the UK is a personal choice and not allowable against tax.

I know that is what they will say because I did ask them and they did say that. So the idea that you can not be expected to move home is your idea of what is fair, not a self-evident truth; and that holds even between different countries.

If you think I'm being pedantic, I'd say that I don't have any chance of being as pedantic as lawyers and courts.

[pimped]

No, you could still move home, to the country of work - you might not want to, but you could: therefore you are not "required to live in accommodation other than your own home", just to move your home. I am not kidding, this is exactly what HMRC will tell you if you say that you are going to work in Switzerland and you will therefore have to be technically employed by a Swiss company: they will then tell you that your place of work is in Switzerland, so you can be expected to live somewhere accessible to your workplace: therefore travel between there and the UK is a personal choice and not allowable against tax.

I know that is what they will say because I did ask them and they did say that. So the idea that you can not be expected to move home is your idea of what is fair, not a self-evident truth; and that holds even between different countries.

If you think I'm being pedantic, I'd say that I don't have any chance of being as pedantic as lawyers and courts.

Not at all pedantic. This illustrates why it is so important that things are clear.

So the offer from agent:

"Go and work in different country - expenses paid"

Contractor: "yes please"

This is clear to me that the offer includes expenses and is an inducement to take up offer.

Agent: oh lets do this quick, go and take up contract. We will use umbrella company.

Contractor: Whatever

Umbrella company: You are not allowed to have expenses. You must be employed by us.

Contractor: No thank's that was not the offer that I accepted ....... I accepted offer of expenses paid......

[pimped]

Expenses not included

With regard to working abroad in an uncommutable country as you describe above for example Switzerland.

Ît is entirely possible to work in any EU country including Switzerland through your own limited company or as a freelancer. This is enshrined in the Free movement of people legislation. I believe for most EU countries there is a time limit. For Switzerland this is 90 days, not counting travel days. I am interested to see the legislation that proclaims you cannot do business in another country?

I guess it depends on how the project is described and how the person taking up the project is described. If you wish to be an employee then the scenario you describe above applies. If you do not wish to be an employee but have a contract for services then there is a difference.

The authorities cannot expect you to move home for 90 days and then move back. It does not make sense