Best route re: IR35?

[Ticktock]

I guess I should do a search and consider whether I'm really cut out to be a contractor, before talking to QDOS etc, but just looking for thoughts and input late in the evening.

My current contract will run out in December and the project is being shelved, so I've been looking for the next client, and have an interview set up tomorrow night. I'm not sure whether I'll have an option, but had two thoughts on what to push for re: IR35, and whether either option would make a difference, or whether to just reject the whole thing.

The job is with a training consultancy and would involve delivering training on their behalf. It won't be full-time, probably a few days every couple of weeks or so at most. I can then accept other work if and when I find it, to fit around this.
The client need me to be certified (an "official" methodology for training the software package, certified by the software vendor), so will provide training to get this, and that would also mean they have control over "how" I do the job.
I'm presuming substitution won't be an option, as they'd require any substitute to be certified also. Even if the term was in the contract I don't have any contacts already certified.
I also presume that they will want me to represent the company, rather than explicitly stating "I'm from MyCo" to their clients.
They book the end-user training sessions (mixture of public self-registration and packages to corporate clients), so of course would have complete control over the "where and when" I deliver.

As I list these the warning bells get louder and louder! The only redeeming point may be that I guess I would be an associate of the client? I'm not sure whether that would push me as safe as can be reasonably expected?

Option 1:
Take a contract for a year, and use absence of mutuality to be offered and accept work, as and when I'm needed and available.

Option 2:
Take multiple short contracts for a few days each time I'm needed and available. Hopefully I'll find other contracts in the meantime to fill out my calendar (and wallet).

Regarding the training and certification that they'll provide, this is being offered in lieu of a better rate, so in effect is part of the offer (not sure if it would be stated in the contract or just an unofficial agreement). Would I be better off asking for a much better rate for 3 months (which magically adds up to the training costs) and then paying them for the course, or is that too obvious a dodge?

In my own mind, the fact that I'd be taking requests for my service and making a decision whether I'd want to do it or not each time makes me feel safer, but the list of factors above makes me wary.

Any thoughts?

[ambient]

I guess I should do a search and consider whether I'm really cut out to be a contractor, before talking to QDOS etc, but just looking for thoughts and input late in the evening.

My current contract will run out in December and the project is being shelved, so I've been looking for the next client, and have an interview set up tomorrow night. I'm not sure whether I'll have an option, but had two thoughts on what to push for re: IR35, and whether either option would make a difference, or whether to just reject the whole thing.

The job is with a training consultancy and would involve delivering training on their behalf. It won't be full-time, probably a few days every couple of weeks or so at most. I can then accept other work if and when I find it, to fit around this.
The client need me to be certified (an "official" methodology for training the software package, certified by the software vendor), so will provide training to get this, and that would also mean they have control over "how" I do the job.
I'm presuming substitution won't be an option, as they'd require any substitute to be certified also. Even if the term was in the contract I don't have any contacts already certified.
I also presume that they will want me to represent the company, rather than explicitly stating "I'm from MyCo" to their clients.
They book the end-user training sessions (mixture of public self-registration and packages to corporate clients), so of course would have complete control over the "where and when" I deliver.

As I list these the warning bells get louder and louder! The only redeeming point may be that I guess I would be an associate of the client? I'm not sure whether that would push me as safe as can be reasonably expected?

Option 1:
Take a contract for a year, and use absence of mutuality to be offered and accept work, as and when I'm needed and available.

Option 2:
Take multiple short contracts for a few days each time I'm needed and available. Hopefully I'll find other contracts in the meantime to fill out my calendar (and wallet).

Regarding the training and certification that they'll provide, this is being offered in lieu of a better rate, so in effect is part of the offer (not sure if it would be stated in the contract or just an unofficial agreement). Would I be better off asking for a much better rate for 3 months (which magically adds up to the training costs) and then paying them for the course, or is that too obvious a dodge?

In my own mind, the fact that I'd be taking requests for my service and making a decision whether I'd want to do it or not each time makes me feel safer, but the list of factors above makes me wary.

Any thoughts?

If at all possible I'd be tempted to go down a fixed-price route if I could, i.e. avoid a "contractor contract" altogether and instead use a supplier-type contract where you agree to deliver x courses per annum for £x,000. Or, if they are a consultancy, they might be used to customers buying 15 days of their consultants time to be used as and when they (think) they need it. So you could try to sell 35 days of your time for a fixed price, which they could then draw on when needed.

[northernladuk]

The job is with a training consultancy and would involve delivering training on their behalf. It won't be full-time, probably a few days every couple of weeks or so at most. I can then accept other work if and when I find it, to fit around this.

Fair enough, will be difficult to balance two adhoc roles though won't it?

The client need me to be certified (an "official" methodology for training the software package, certified by the software vendor), so will provide training to get this, and that would also mean they have control over "how" I do the job.

I don't think being trained on how the client wants you to deliver is a certain IR35 issue. For example, your speciality is training, how to deliver and so on which is a skill in itself. The fact you want to apply your skills to something that is bespoke to your client means he needs you to get up to speed to apply your skills. I don't see this as a problem personally. You don't need this training to do your job, just apply it to this client. Sound about right?

I'm presuming substitution won't be an option, as they'd require any substitute to be certified also. Even if the term was in the contract I don't have any contacts already certified.

I would say so. Most sub clauses won't work anyway but let's leave that. If your sub needed training again and the client isn't willing to do that I would say no subs would be allowed. You can still try and get it in the contract personally though. Might be exposed as a sham but would need to be scrutinised to find that out. If the client says no, well, then that's that.

I also presume that they will want me to represent the company, rather than explicitly stating "I'm from MyCo" to their clients.

They don't actually want you to stand up and say 'I am x working for y and today we will learn z' do they? I think this one could be avoided with some clever wording like 'working with' or 'behalf of'. If they start writing you in saying 'Ticktock works for us and is one of our best trainers' then you might have a problem.

They book the end-user training sessions (mixture of public self-registration and packages to corporate clients), so of course would have complete control over the "where and when" I deliver.

Don't see a problem with this. Nature of the contract.

As I list these the warning bells get louder and louder! The only redeeming point may be that I guess I would be an associate of the client? I'm not sure whether that would push me as safe as can be reasonably expected?

There is some interesting situations but the nature of the role is to deliver training. Training has to be booked at a location and a certain date so they can't crucify you for that, nature of the beast surely. I don't see anything so far that is too much of a problem that any freelance or small training firm would face if contracted to your client.

The key here is not to look like an employee. You turn up, train, go home and wait for next course. Don't get involved in feedback, typing up certs for attendance, organising the events etc.

Option 1:
Take a contract for a year, and use absence of mutuality to be offered and accept work, as and when I'm needed and available.

I believe MoO is about their obligation to offer you work after the contract has ended not during the contract as I first thought so don't think that will work but the adhoc nature of the work will certainly show you are suffering risk if they don't offer courses so don't work which is a great indicator for sure. If you get paid whether they get you a course or not then you are fooked but that doesn't seem to be the situation here.

Option 2:
Take multiple short contracts for a few days each time I'm needed and available. Hopefully I'll find other contracts in the meantime to fill out my calendar (and wallet).

Will the client go for this? They will train you but you have no contract to work for them, even if it is an adhoc nature?

Regarding the training and certification that they'll provide, this is being offered in lieu of a better rate, so in effect is part of the offer (not sure if it would be stated in the contract or just an unofficial agreement). Would I be better off asking for a much better rate for 3 months (which magically adds up to the training costs) and then paying them for the course, or is that too obvious a dodge?

I would be inclined to say pay for training and then work for them on the better rate. Shows a great amount of risk on your part paying for something that might not actually generate returns.

Interesting one this. Hope my thoughts help.

[northernladuk]

If at all possible I'd be tempted to go down a fixed-price route if I could, i.e. avoid a "contractor contract" altogether and instead use a supplier-type contract where you agree to deliver x courses per annum for £x,000. Or, if they are a consultancy, they might be used to customers buying 15 days of their consultants time to be used as and when they (think) they need it. So you could try to sell 35 days of your time for a fixed price, which they could then draw on when needed.

Nice idea!

[ambient]

Nice idea!

Why thanks, praise indeed!

But seriously, I think the OP here has a golden opportunity to clearly be a business. I can't tell from the info provided if this makes sense, but in addition to the fixed price route I described, i'd
a) Pay for the upfront training from my company, it may or may not be claimable against CT, but it's clear evidence of taking a business risk
b) Consider not getting into charging the client for hotels, travel and subsistence costs etc.
c) Wrap all of the costs of a) and b) and any others into my fixed price.

[Ticktock]

Thanks guys. That gives me some ideas. Of course, I don't yet know whether I'll have any say in the structure of the contract WHEN () they make me the offer. I guess I'll find out tonight!

[BlasterBates]

I don´t see this as IR35 at all. You have full control over your training sessions, you are only booked to do training sessions, you don´t run around helping to run their dept between these sessions, with 9 to 5 hours., and you will be chasing up other work half the time. If you do have a training session, surely you need to prepare and that will be done in your own office. In other words you are paid for a three hour training session that takes several hours to prepare.

I would say you´re pretty clearly outside IR35.

[psychocandy]

Worrying about too much I think.

If you worry about the client telling you what work you'll be doing then you'd worry about everything re: IR35. And telling you where to go - seriously why is this a problem?

Im doing a project for my client, and sometimes, a requirement comes up that I have to got to customer site, so client tells me about it. Hardly controlling me, is it? What are they supposed to do - keep it a secret just in case?

99.99999% of clients would be well pissed off if you kick up a fuss about this. They just dont want contractors sitting there kicking off about every little thing that they dont want to do.

[Wanderer]

The job is with a training consultancy and would involve delivering training on their behalf. It won't be full-time, probably a few days every couple of weeks or so at most. I can then accept other work if and when I find it, to fit around this.

OK, so make sure the contract makes it clear that they are not obliged to offer you any work and if they do offer work then you are not obliged to carry it out. That will score well on the MOO test and probably push you towards being outside IR35.

Also make sure that you have a clause to say that you could send a suitably qualified substitute in the event that you can't do the work personally (yeah, I know that's unlikely but it's worth having anyway).

To be honest though, I wouldn't worry too much as it's probably not going to be a high value target for HMRC. The ones to really worry about are when you work for a client on a Monday to Friday basis for a few years...

[Ticktock]

Aaaaand.. nailed it of course

Willing to try to find me work on the basis of our phone conversation, even before we meet up and I deliver some example training. The only downside is how sporadic the work might be, but potentially will have a 3 month job for a client in January that she would pass to me.

Not certain on how we'd draw up the contract yet, just happy that I'm wanted!