Agent needing to see passport when they have already seen scans

[BolshieBastard]

And .IR35 aside banging on to newbies about working practices is not bad advice. I for one am sick of new guys coming in and acting like permies. Someone at my last gig complained they didn't get a yearly review when the permies did and next thing I know we get the same form the permies used asking us to fill it in a book a face to face feedback session with our manager. ******* morons.

Got to agree with you there. They'll be wanting to make 'applications' for leave on the same form as permies next.

One client I was at, the PM who was a contractor expected me to complete a form to apply for leave and him 'authorise' it. Told him no way was I doing that. If he wanted to complete a form and retain it, no probs but no way was I going to complete said form.

[Old Greg]

Got to agree with you there. They'll be wanting to make 'applications' for leave on the same form as permies next.

One client I was at, the PM who was a contractor expected me to complete a form to apply for leave and him 'authorise' it. Told him no way was I doing that. If he wanted to complete a form and retain it, no probs but no way was I going to complete said form.

Performance reviews and plans will be next.

[northernladuk]

NLUK, lets not fall out over this dear

I'm not saying kate is talking crap either, but you already know that. I also never said that working practices weren't important. All I did was ask you for a practical example of some working practice you put in place to make you 'not part and parcel of the organisation' and in that context, how would you do it in a way that client evidence, when requested by HMRC for an enquiry, would answer that ?

What i'm trying to get at is that lots of people talk about working practices, but don't seem to know what they are or mean.

I was seeking clarification of that.

Am not falling out over anything. Its a very interesting debate and am almost questioning myself. I don't need to list working practices to argue over each one in particular and you know what they are. Anything that permies do and we shouldn't. Expenses holiday authorization performance reviews etc. Each one alone is trivial but if your ignoring a few chances are you ignoring them all amounting to a permit mindset. As I said people should be doing this just act professionally with a client if not for .ir35.. not all are possible overtime but at least you can show due diligence.

[kingcook]

Got to agree with you there. They'll be wanting to make 'applications' for leave on the same form as permies next.

One client I was at, the PM who was a contractor expected me to complete a form to apply for leave and him 'authorise' it. Told him no way was I doing that. If he wanted to complete a form and retain it, no probs but no way was I going to complete said form.

Other contractors have done that (but without the filling in forms bit) at my current client.

Contractor: Can i have a week off next week?
PM: Sounds ok to me, i'll just clear it with higher up manager and let you know.



I understand the need to be there to get the work done though, but (as has been said in the past on these forums) you should TELL them you won't be available on X date, and just check if that will be a problem WRT deadlines, etc. Don't ask for holidays FFS!!

[norrahe]

Other contractors have done that (but without the filling in forms bit) at my current client.

Contractor: Can i have a week off next week?
PM: Sounds ok to me, i'll just clear it with higher up manager and let you know.



I understand the need to be there to get the work done though, but (as has been said in the past on these forums) you should TELL them you won't be available on X date, and just check if that will be a problem WRT deadlines, etc. Don't ask for holidays FFS!!

I never ask I tell them in advance when I will be taking time off and make sure it doesn't interfere with deadlines.

Simples.

Tbh a lot a gigs seem to be going down the route of perminess, it used to be a case you'd interview get offered the gig and start a few days later. The contracts given to you by agencies were simple with no bulltulip. IR35 has a lot to answer for, but it is a right PITA having to spend nearly a week getting contracts reviewed right before you start a gig as agencies seem to think you're idiotic enough to just sign quickly without reading. Also agencies seem to be slipping in some interesting clauses of liability or no option to give notice. You have to be very careful.

I know some organisations will insist on CRB and credit checks, but those professional enough will ensure there is a quick online solution available for interim staff, so it can be done quickly without fuss.

Last year when securing a gig in NL, I had to get 5 years of references personally signed and originals sent back to me, copies of passports, degree certificates, PM qualifications had to be produced to screening company, also an original of the CRB check going back 5 years as well. This was for a 3 month contract!

[TestMangler]

Am not falling out over anything. Its a very interesting debate and am almost questioning myself. I don't need to list working practices to argue over each one in particular and you know what they are. Anything that permies do and we shouldn't. Expenses holiday authorization performance reviews etc. Each one alone is trivial but if your ignoring a few chances are you ignoring them all amounting to a permit mindset. As I said people should be doing this just act professionally with a client if not for .ir35.. not all are possible overtime but at least you can show due diligence.

Right, now we're nearly coming together on this

So, going back to what I originally said about client evidence, which can pretty much make or break your defence as Hmrc are generally trying to prove that your contract doesn't equal your working practices. (Please remember that an awful lot of IR35 cases get opened and don't go to commissioners or court). So, you don't have yearly or half yearly reviews, because you're a contractor. That's fair enough. HMRC are investigating you and thet ask the client, "Do you actively monitor the performance of Mr Contractor in a similar way to your employees ?". The bird with the nice arse from HR answers, "Yes". Generally because she doesn't know so just guesses. You can't pay people and not be sure they're delivering after all, can you ?

Going back to my original point about 'working practices being the least of your worries' and my original points in my first post on this thread, what working practices can you, realistically, put in place, that, when the client is questioned, will bring forth answers that work in your favour ? My answer is, generally, you can't.

You can scream all day about your method of work being your own, working to deliverables only, not asking for holidays, refusing to appear on org charts and phone books. Client evidence, as percieved by the client's upper organisation, is what will fck you up.

For a real life example, generally, clients will express surprise when faced with the 'substitution' question and say "oooohhh no, that's not allowed". Now, in my case, HMRC branded my substitution clause as a sham, Client answered with 'refer to contract' and I managed to trump the opposition with conclusive evidence that the sub clause had, in fact, been used, by me.

So, I would say that 'working practices' ARE important, but it needs a tulip load of qualification so that contractors don't start chasing down the wrong things, like org charts and phone directories.

That's really all I was trying to imply. I think we may have got there in the end

[Old Greg]

Right, now we're nearly coming together on this

So, going back to what I originally said about client evidence, which can pretty much make or break your defence as Hmrc are generally trying to prove that your contract doesn't equal your working practices. (Please remember that an awful lot of IR35 cases get opened and don't go to commissioners or court). So, you don't have yearly or half yearly reviews, because you're a contractor. That's fair enough. HMRC are investigating you and thet ask the client, "Do you actively monitor the performance of Mr Contractor in a similar way to your employees ?". The bird with the nice arse from HR answers, "Yes". Generally because she doesn't know so just guesses. You can't pay people and not be sure they're delivering after all, can you ?

Going back to my original point about 'working practices being the least of your worries' and my original points in my first post on this thread, what working practices can you, realistically, put in place, that, when the client is questioned, will bring forth answers that work in your favour ? My answer is, generally, you can't.

You can scream all day about your method of work being your own, working to deliverables only, not asking for holidays, refusing to appear on org charts and phone books. Client evidence, as percieved by the client's upper organisation, is what will fck you up.

For a real life example, generally, clients will express surprise when faced with the 'substitution' question and say "oooohhh no, that's not allowed". Now, in my case, HMRC branded my substitution clause as a sham, Client answered with 'refer to contract' and I managed to trump the opposition with conclusive evidence that the sub clause had, in fact, been used, by me.

So, I would say that 'working practices' ARE important, but it needs a tulip load of qualification so that contractors don't start chasing down the wrong things, like org charts and phone directories.

That's really all I was trying to imply. I think we may have got there in the end

If you're not in the org chart, HR will probably not realise you exist. Must be good.

[quackhandle]

Could one not argue, M'lud that it is imperative that said [looks at notes] "said bird with nice arse in HR" does not answer ANY form relating to your working practices and if she does it and it is brought up by Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs then said evidence can be thrown out as inadmissible?

Your witness.

qh

[Optimus]

Right, now we're nearly coming together on this

So, going back to what I originally said about client evidence, which can pretty much make or break your defence as Hmrc are generally trying to prove that your contract doesn't equal your working practices. (Please remember that an awful lot of IR35 cases get opened and don't go to commissioners or court). So, you don't have yearly or half yearly reviews, because you're a contractor. That's fair enough. HMRC are investigating you and thet ask the client, "Do you actively monitor the performance of Mr Contractor in a similar way to your employees ?". The bird with the nice arse from HR answers, "Yes". Generally because she doesn't know so just guesses. You can't pay people and not be sure they're delivering after all, can you ?

Going back to my original point about 'working practices being the least of your worries' and my original points in my first post on this thread, what working practices can you, realistically, put in place, that, when the client is questioned, will bring forth answers that work in your favour ? My answer is, generally, you can't.

You can scream all day about your method of work being your own, working to deliverables only, not asking for holidays, refusing to appear on org charts and phone books. Client evidence, as percieved by the client's upper organisation, is what will fck you up.

For a real life example, generally, clients will express surprise when faced with the 'substitution' question and say "oooohhh no, that's not allowed". Now, in my case, HMRC branded my substitution clause as a sham, Client answered with 'refer to contract' and I managed to trump the opposition with conclusive evidence that the sub clause had, in fact, been used, by me.

So, I would say that 'working practices' ARE important, but it needs a tulip load of qualification so that contractors don't start chasing down the wrong things, like org charts and phone directories.

That's really all I was trying to imply. I think we may have got there in the end

In my current role, I appear in the Org chart but in a different colour as a 'contractor' as opoosed to permies. However, I still have to have 121s with my PM who is a perm. Also I'm mandated to attend all the organisation's events, forums etc. just like the perms and if any of the contracted staff miss it then they are told off and expected to attend the next event etc. So in some respects there is little to choose between the perms and non-perms but in others you are definitely singled out as a contracted resource than can be capitalised against a project.

[TestMangler]

Could one not argue, M'lud that it is imperative that said [looks at notes] "said bird with nice arse in HR" does not answer ANY form relating to your working practices and if she does it and it is brought up by Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs then said evidence can be thrown out as inadmissible?

Your witness.

qh

A very interesting point of view by learned council....it would please the court if council would explain how to ensure that is how events transpire ? You'll have no control over how HMRC approach your client, should they decide to do so.