Hays contract: PSCToASR_02-12

[Edt]

Contrators should not be accepting the kind of terms being offered, negotiate

I have a had a fair share of aggro with agencies in the last year for the first time in 15 years. I was flabbergasted by some of the terms I was aked to sign. e.g "cant terminate the contract ever and if you do you wont get paid any of the 6 weeks money they are holding" . Naturally I dodnt sign this. I negotiated a months notice both ways.

I then found out why within a week of starting, they'd been abusing contractors and marching them out the door at a blinding rate. They were being used as scapegoats in a battle between IT and Business, the usuaul crap.

One evening I was told to lie to board member about a project that was impossible and to stay in all evening writing the untryue report. I said no and went home, result. Immediate temination and you guessed, no month notice or pay in lieu.
There was claus ethat said if the agency accuss you of unreasonable behavour they can dismiss you and if you are not there they dont have to pay.

If I had read this carefully, I could have prevented this. Once the client meets you and wants to hire you, you are then in 99% control until you start work, after that you forfeit most of it.

Another agency was unhappy when I negotiated an early exit with the client so they disabled the online portal and I could not get an electronic timesheet signed as required by the contract, hence they refused to pay.

Be wary and for god sake read the contracts.
I may be able to retrieve some of this money via long winded and risk court cases, but I could have saved all the trouble if I had some help with the contracts.

We really should have a hall of shame of ridiculous contracts and warn people.

[TheFaQQer]

There was claus ethat said if the agency accuss you of unreasonable behavour they can dismiss you and if you are not there they dont have to pay.

If I had read this carefully, I could have prevented this.

I bet you couldn't. It's a fairly standard clause - if they aren't happy, then they want the right to terminate. Even if they didn't have that clause, then they give you notice and tell you not to come in again - same difference.

Another agency was unhappy when I negotiated an early exit with the client so they disabled the online portal and I could not get an electronic timesheet signed as required by the contract, hence they refused to pay.

That's why you shouldn't have opted out of the agency regulations - you do the work, they have to pay you.

[Jubber]

FFS just take the contract and get the money in the bank.

The reality is you'll earn money. Turning down a well paid gig for the sake of an iffy IR35 contract is nuts.

I've had some cracking contracts through Hays. They pay weekly and are unlikely to go bust.

How many contractors on here, or anywhere, do you hear squeaking about the amount of IR35 visits they are having to put up with ?

[kingcook]

FFS just take the contract and get the money in the bank.

The reality is you'll earn money. Turning down a well paid gig for the sake of an iffy IR35 contract is nuts.

I've had some cracking contracts through Hays. They pay weekly and are unlikely to go bust.

How many contractors on here, or anywhere, do you hear squeaking about the amount of IR35 visits they are having to put up with ?

Being inside IR35 would make it tulip money. I'd rather wait a short while for another contract to (hopefully) turn up.

[bobspud]

How many contractors on here, or anywhere, do you hear squeaking about the amount of IR35 visits they are having to put up with ?

Or put another way: When HMRC clock on that they can just waltz into Hays and demand every contractors details that are working under that contract for the last 6 years how much easier will it be for them to role through proving you're all caught and owe them money? Ostrich style does not work with HMRC.

I agree that your attitude is common amongst contractors but there are an awful lot of guys in the BN66 threads moaning that they had the tables turned on their low risk strategy and now HMRC can just take their time and ruin them when they can be bothered.

If the contract is crap then its crap and should be avoided until Hays understand that they won't place skilled contractors with a secretaries terms and conditions.

[TheFaQQer]

Being inside IR35 would make it tulip money. I'd rather wait a short while for another contract to (hopefully) turn up.

I don't think Jubber was suggesting that you declare it as being inside IR35, though. I read it as "take the contract and rely on not getting an investigation", which may not be the correct interpretation of the post.

[Wanderer]

Or put another way: When HMRC clock on that they can just waltz into Hays and demand every contractors details that are working under that contract for the last 6 years how much easier will it be for them to role through proving you're all caught and owe them money? Ostrich style does not work with HMRC.

Wow, great idea. Definitely a big win for HMRC.

Uh, why do you think they have not done that already? Do you think it's because they are too stupid to think of that idea. Or maybe it's a lot more complex that we are led to believe and the contract reviewers are quite happy with their little cottage industry of reviewing the same old contracts from the same old agencies over and over again and taking the money (and good luck to them, of course!).

I think IR35 is there to be a deterrent to keep people from taking the piss and despite what the PCG say, it's worked pretty well at keeping people from incorporating as a LTD company when they are really just a disguised employee. The growth of the umbrella company is testament to that. If they abolished IR35 then a large chunk of these workers would incorporate because of the tax savings they could make.

So long as you aren't a clearly caught case they probably aren't going to bother you unless you are unlucky enough to be one of the ones who is chosen to be a test case and dragged through the courts.

[northernladuk]

Or put another way: When HMRC clock on that they can just waltz into Hays and demand every contractors details that are working under that contract for the last 6 years how much easier will it be for them to role through proving you're all caught and owe them money? Ostrich style does not work with HMRC.

Possibly because working practice dictates IR35 above the contract so even if they did this they will only have a weak case at best and have to start from scratch just as they do for every investigation.

[quackhandle]

I got my Hays contract reviewed via QDOS it came back with a few pointers, I got Hays to add amendments to the bottom or I wouldn't renew.

It was done within days, I carried on invoicing, paid weekly.

Pick and choose your battles.

qh

[kingcook]

I got my Hays contract reviewed via QDOS it came back with a few pointers, I got Hays to add amendments to the bottom or I wouldn't renew.

I'd be interested how that looks. e.g. Was there some clause that said "you are under the control of the client", then further along it says, "you are not really under the control of the client, please ignore clause x.y"?

Just curious on how it would look from a legal POV and an IR35 POV.