Client doesn't have to offer you work, say what?

[malvolio]

I really cant believe someone who purports to be a contractor can seriously posts what the OP did.

As NLUK has frequently said, these types are watering down what contracting is and making it more and more difficult for us 'proper' contractors to get clients \ agencies to treat us as businesses and not disguised employees.

Truely disgraceful.

WBBS....

Perhaps they should go away and do some reading. A key IR35 case was won because the judge agreed that being sent home without pay for hte day becuase the servers had failed and so no work could be done, while the permies simply stayed and were paid, was sufficeint to demonstrate the requisite lack of MOO. So it's not a trivial point. nor is it irrelevant. Have a google for Mike Ansell and look up Kate Cotterell's neat summary of why its important.

Seriously, if you CBA to find out the basics of IR35 case law and commercial contracts, stop arguing about it with those that can.

[nomadd]

WBBS....

Perhaps they should go away and do some reading. A key IR35 case was won because the judge agreed that being sent home without pay for hte day becuase the servers had failed and so no work could be done, while the permies simply stayed and were paid, was sufficeint to demonstrate the requisite lack of MOO. So it's not a trivial point. nor is it irrelevant.

Agree completely.

And I would also add: To stress the point of you being an independent business operating independently, you would make all endeavours to continue supplying service. In other words, working from you own business premises with your own equipment should the client have suffered such things as a server failure, flooding, fire damage. etc., etc. This isn't possible in all situations, but it is in most. I can't think of a single situation as a contractor in the last 24 years where I've not being able to supply billable services (of some form) in the event of a clients premises being unavailable. Remember, you are managing your own workload as well as your own time.

[Ignis Fatuus]

I really cant believe someone who purports to be a contractor can seriously posts what the OP did.

As NLUK has frequently said, these types are watering down what contracting is and making it more and more difficult for us 'proper' contractors to get clients \ agencies to treat us as businesses and not disguised employees.

Truely disgraceful.

What a load of bollocks. I understand the principle of MOO (or lack of it, to be precise, as I tend to be). I merely asked for more precision in a particular phrase (not an unusual idea in IT I would have thought). Specifically, I asked if people who use that phrase intend a certain other notion to be implied, always. The answer is of course yes. My thanks to those who gave a straight answer to a straight question.

If you can't believe that someone who "purports to be a contractor" might ask people to clarify what they mean, you should get out more. Preferably not in my town.

In General the answer might be a "you're not a real contractor" pissing contest. Elsewhere, it is you who are behaving disgracefully. And Malvolio, I'm surprised at you jumping on a personal insult bandwagon.

[SueEllen]

What a load of bollocks. I understand the principle of MOO (or lack of it, to be precise, as I tend to be). I merely asked for more precision in a particular phrase (not an unusual idea in IT I would have thought).

The reason you are being jumped on is precisely because you are not a newbie.

If you haven't worked out by now that if you have a contract with a clause that states something like "if there is no work to do then you don't get paid" means then you clearly don't understand the contracts you are signing and should have got the meaning explained to you a long time ago.

Not understanding contract clauses can get you into trouble or cost you a lot of money when things go wrong - and I'm not just talking about IR35.

[bless 'em all]

Without going back through all my old contracts I do seem to recall this type of clause appears in all of them. If there's no work for a day or so then why would a Client Co want you on site? Your contract should state you're available for work for the duration but there is MOO both ways.

My current contract states a MAX number of hours they'll pay for each week without needing additional authorisation, but it states nothing about a MIN number.

[centurian]

WBBS....

Perhaps they should go away and do some reading. A key IR35 case was won because the judge agreed that being sent home without pay for hte day becuase the servers had failed and so no work could be done, while the permies simply stayed and were paid, was sufficeint to demonstrate the requisite lack of MOO. So it's not a trivial point. nor is it irrelevant. Have a google for Mike Ansell and look up Kate Cotterell's neat summary of why its important.

Seriously, if you CBA to find out the basics of IR35 case law and commercial contracts, stop arguing about it with those that can.

WMS.

The ability for ClientCo to send you home (at short notice) and not pay you - is one of the things that legally sets you apart from employees (as long as permie's remain onsite and/or are paid for the time).

This isn't just some BS armchair lawyers talk (of which you get plenty on here) - this is legal precedent from a High Court judgement. As long as your situation is similar, HMRC can't even argue against it at the High Court - they would need to take it higher.

Having the clause in a contract is advantageous for IR35 - having it executed (as has happened in most IB's lately) is highly advantageous - and if executed at short notice, it's probably as close as you will get to being an IR35 killer.

If you don't want that clause, then try and negotiate to get it removed. Just don't come back whinging if your contract fails an IR35 review.

[BolshieBastard]

What a load of bollocks. I understand the principle of MOO (or lack of it, to be precise, as I tend to be). I merely asked for more precision in a particular phrase (not an unusual idea in IT I would have thought). Specifically, I asked if people who use that phrase intend a certain other notion to be implied, always. The answer is of course yes. My thanks to those who gave a straight answer to a straight question.

If you can't believe that someone who "purports to be a contractor" might ask people to clarify what they mean, you should get out more. Preferably not in my town.

In General the answer might be a "you're not a real contractor" pissing contest. Elsewhere, it is you who are behaving disgracefully. And Malvolio, I'm surprised at you jumping on a personal insult bandwagon.

LOL! 'Not in my town.'

Where precisely is 'your' town?