Bench - the end client bench

[northernladuk]

Theoretically a schedule of work can be created. They want me to be on their "bench" to be brought back in for specific work rather than being shunted between projects - project I'm on is expecting more work, awaiting funding. I appreciate the D&C issue but that's not my biggest concern.

Think it's safe to safe I'll be looking elsewhere anyway.

Right. And one email from HMRC to the client asking what you do and they reply anything we need him for would shatter that illusion.

[MyUserName]

It's not about MoO. That is work after the contract. It's about client Direction and Control and no schedule of work. You are a client resource, not a specialist delivering a set piece of work.

I don't have a schedule or work or a set deliverable. My contract just says I am to supply the service of a C++ developer, QDOS did not seem to have a problem with this?

[perplexed]

Right. And one email from HMRC to the client asking what you do and they reply anything we need him for would shatter that illusion.

Regardless of contract/working practises, you're still exposed to that if HMRC speak to the right (wrong?) f***wit at the end client though. Especially if the end client is a large organisation with numerous companies providing services and a total lack of comunication...

Even so, my rationale for avoiding any "bench" system was explained earlier. The end client could accept that, send me home until work became available due to no MoO. Neither is a particularly good scenario for my business; bench = inside IR35, stay at home = no company income.

[b0redom]

Could be be considered as a retainer?

This? Or a support agreement? Presumably when you're on their bench you can wfh and pursue other short term engagements? MoO still holds right?

[perplexed]

I don't have a schedule or work or a set deliverable. My contract just says I am to supply the service of a C++ developer, QDOS did not seem to have a problem with this?

Same, albeit a different language.

Surely there are some valid roles where a set deliverable cannot be established - ie, if providing support / bug fixing services then there's an obvious issue in that the work will be dependent upon external factors, when bugs get raised etc.

[MyUserName]

Same, albeit a different language.

Surely there are some valid roles where a set deliverable cannot be established - ie, if providing support / bug fixing services then there's an obvious issue in that the work will be dependent upon external factors, when bugs get raised etc.

The only thing that has just occurred to me is that we might be developing a new front end soon which is not in C++ so I will need to get that changed! I might try for it to just say "software developer" instead.

[northernladuk]

I don't have a schedule or work or a set deliverable. My contract just says I am to supply the service of a C++ developer, QDOS did not seem to have a problem with this?

I am very surprised at that but impossible to say why from a one liner. There maybe other factors but I would certainly be going back and asking them. Without a schedule you could potentially be moved to another job which would demonstrate client D&C. In a borderline case that lack of a schedule could bite you hard. Depends on working conditions of course which QDOS would have difficulty judging. Again, if HMRC contacted the client what would his view be?

[northernladuk]

Regardless of contract/working practises, you're still exposed to that if HMRC speak to the right (wrong?) f***wit at the end client though. Especially if the end client is a large organisation with numerous companies providing services and a total lack of comunication...

Even so, my rationale for avoiding any "bench" system was explained earlier. The end client could accept that, send me home until work became available due to no MoO. Neither is a particularly good scenario for my business; bench = inside IR35, stay at home = no company income.

It's up to you what you do but do not kid yourself over your situation. When they need you they give you any old piece of work demonstrating D&C which is one of the key factors in IR35. I am not sure why you keep glossing over that.

I am still of the opinion that MoO isn't within in a contract. It's the obligation to give work once the contract has ended, like a permie. He has to have more work once he has completed his task. The company is obliged to give him another task. If the contract between you and the client is to give you work when it is available and send you home when it isn't then that isn't MoO, that is the agreement of the contract.

[northernladuk]

The only thing that has just occurred to me is that we might be developing a new front end soon which is not in C++ so I will need to get that changed! I might try for it to just say "software developer" instead.

Which would be argued by HMRC as D&C as you are part and parcel of the workforce to do with as he pleases. Your role could also be classed as enduring so they have two lines of enquiry at least. Only you know your situation but you have to be pragmatic. Doesn't sound a very clever situation to me.

[MyUserName]

Which would be argued by HMRC as D&C as you are part and parcel of the workforce to do with as he pleases.

But if the new contract covers the work then surely that is fine? Or are you saying that updating a contract to reflect potential new work would be the problem?

Your role could also be classed as enduring so they have two lines of enquiry at least. Only you know your situation but you have to be pragmatic. Doesn't sound a very clever situation to me.

Well, I think it is fair to say that sorting this ASAP with the client and QDOS to be priority number 1!