Contract for service / Contract of service

[suityou01]

Tell the client directly the agency is messing you about?

Done. Still nothing.

[suityou01]

Finally got a response

They have agreed to some of the changes suggested by QDos.

Here are some of the one's they won't agree to.

“The Contractor”
This definition should be the limited company who is providing the services, rather than the services of individuals. The words, “of the Representative” should be removed.

We are unable to remove this clause as the client has specifically asked for the Representative, not another individual who may be working for the same Ltd Company

Specified Site
As an independent contractor you should ideally have some control regarding where the services are provided, so this could be viewed as a little controlling. However sometimes the nature of the services dictates where they are carried out so if this is the case this is likely to be defendable. Ideally, this should also state that you can provide services from your own offices as agreed between the Contractor and Client.

We can state London based locations as agreed with the client but we would need to get approval from ClientCo regarding working from home offices and I do not think they would agree as this has been a bone of contention in the past, however I can ask them if this is a show stopper.

There are others but these two I thought were quite important. Probably the first one being the deal breaker as it means right off the bat ClientCo are blocking any kind of substition clause.

[jmo21]

They have agreed to some of the changes suggested by QDos.

Here are some of the one's they won't agree to.














There are others but these two I thought were quite important. Probably the first one being the deal breaker as it means right off the bat ClientCo are blocking any kind of substition clause.

I wonder if these really have came from the client?

I'd guess the WFH one has, as some companies don't like WFH, especially for contractors.

[suityou01]

I wonder if these really have came from the client?

I'd guess the WFH one has, as some companies don't like WFH, especially for contractors.

I'm questioning that as one of the first emails in the exchange defended the contract being "standard" and that "1000s of contractors" used it without complaing and it has been vetted for IR35.

This being the case why does it have ClientCo specific T's and C's if it's "standard"?

Before anyone get's smart, I am aware that these additional T's and C's could have been added to a standard contract, but then it becomes non standard.

[DirtyDog]

Politely explain that since the client are engaging an individual rather than your company, you will need to be inside IR35 for this contract. Therefore, your rate has just had to go up by 30%.

That's the only thing you can do from here, apart from walk away completely.

[suityou01]

Politely explain that since the client are engaging an individual rather than your company, you will need to be inside IR35 for this contract. Therefore, your rate has just had to go up by 30%.

That's the only thing you can do from here, apart from walk away completely.

This is with their legal team at present. That would be my final word on the matter too, which is tantamount to saying cheerio IMHO.

[DirtyDog]

This is with their legal team at present. That would be my final word on the matter too, which is tantamount to saying cheerio IMHO.

If it comes off, I'd be getting TLC35 from Qdos because although the contract might say that they would take a substitute, I'd put money on them refusing to do so if push ever came to shove.

At this stage, if they re-word the contract, then you can at least say that you have a reasonable expectation that working practices will match the written word, because you've made it an issue now.

[suityou01]

I showed the contract and QDos review to a fellow contracting buddy (trusted) here. He fell off his chair laughing saying it was the worst contract he'd seen in recent years given that "agencies should really have this hang of this by now".

Couldn't agree more.

Just so you know I'm not making a fuss.

[d000hg]

Politely explain that since the client are engaging an individual rather than your company, you will need to be inside IR35 for this contract. Therefore, your rate has just had to go up by 30%.

That's not true though, is it. A substitution clause is not a requirement to escape IR35.

[DirtyDog]

That's not true though, is it. A substitution clause is not a requirement to escape IR35.

Having an unfettered right of substitution is the easiest way to win your IR35 investigation.

If they are prepared to undermine one of the three basic fundamentals of IR35 so easily, then I wouldn't want to bet on the one of the other two either.

Therefore, I would either increase my rate to compensate for the likely increase in failing an IR35 investigation, or walk away from it.