Agency Forgot to Give Me Notice - Do I Exploit Situation?

[malvolio]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

malvolio, thanks for your post. Yes, I understand all that. However, the reality of my situation is, if I ever got investigated for IR35, they would see this: I got given notice. There was a cock-up in the dates. Reference my contract - we reached a compromise. I worked for 7 days (let's say). I got paid. I did work. I was in the office. Job done. What's the problem with that? MOO is irrelevant here. I'll be working my notice. End of.

Well no, but clearly there's no point arguing any further. Except for one small detail: an employee is someone who works under a contract of service. You may do, in which case you are caught for IR35. I don't, and I'm not. Ergo, I for one am not an employee. Tricky things, semantics...

HTH

[kingcook]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[fraymond]

Hi Neo, whilst I must congratulate you for seeking help when you need it, I can't help but feel perhaps a different line of questioning might have got you further along the path.

Consider these:

1. What is blocking/holding you back from accepting the full notice period?

2. If you decided to walk away and accept no money after your last day, how would you feel and why?

I'm sincerely interested in what your detailed/honest answers would be.

[malvolio]

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Maybe. Do you think I should have pointed out the concept of the notional contract the judge will construct to assess the case, disregarding the various written ones...?

[GB9]

Mututality?
However the point about a notice period being honoured when work has dried up can be construed as you being paid when there is no work to be done, and therefore there is more than an irreducible degree of mutuality and there went your IR35 defence unless you can argue that it was a commercial decision based on how much the client wanted to give you money for doing nothing.

But if people aren't going to keep up with the case law decisions that control their whole contractual construct, then confusion will continue to reign.

End of sermon, I'm off for a drink or three.

So if a system goes down and someone goes home unpaid for a few hours are you expecting them to come back the next day or is that the contract over without notice and following the purest form of moo. If the contractor doesnt turn in the next day will the agent be on to them to find out where they are or will they appreciate that there is no moo and the contractor isnt obliged to undertake any work?

[malvolio]

So if a system goes down and someone goes home unpaid for a few hours are you expecting them to come back the next day or is that the contract over without notice and following the purest form of moo. If the contractor doesnt turn in the next day will the agent be on to them to find out where they are or will they appreciate that there is no moo and the contractor isnt obliged to undertake any work?

Stop wasting everyone's time. There is no connection between my quick summary of Mutuality and this comment. Or can't you distinguish between a temporary shortage of work and termination of contract?

[GB9]

Stop wasting everyone's time. There is no connection between my quick summary of Mutuality and this comment. Or can't you distinguish between a temporary shortage of work and termination of contract?

Hey, you got it. The termination requirements are in there as one of the ways of distinguishing between the two.

Maybe quick summaries aren't best used when discussing the finer points if moo.

[malvolio]

Hey, you got it. The termination requirements are in there as one of the ways of distinguishing between the two.

Maybe quick summaries aren't best used when discussing the finer points if moo.

Nope. Read that twice. Still makes no sense....

[psychocandy]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

malvolio, thanks for your post. Yes, I understand all that. However, the reality of my situation is, if I ever got investigated for IR35, they would see this: I got given notice. There was a cock-up in the dates. Reference my contract - we reached a compromise. I worked for 7 days (let's say). I got paid. I did work. I was in the office. Job done. What's the problem with that? MOO is irrelevant here. I'll be working my notice. End of.

seriously?

[MyUserName]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Your client does not pay you, the agency does. Hence by your own definition the client is not the employer.

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

Let me get this straight .. I take time out of my day to try to help you by explaining the definitions of contracting terms to you and how they apply in your situation and also why this is different to an employer/employee situations - and I am the one who is clearly not an IT contractor?