Originally posted by cojak
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
The "Conduct Reg's" are virtually unenforceable against your intermediary
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostSo Rory's company OracleContractors/Contractor Networks Ltd sued a contractor and won and now he's trumpeting the results from the rooftops (without admitting it was him).
Is that the long and short of it?
The agency withheld £15k of invoices for work that had been done, and tried to claim an extra £39k because he wanted to bypass the agency and go direct.
"So the judge decided that ultimately, “the issue before me” is whether CNL meets the definition of an ‘employment business,’ as defined under the Employment Agencies Act." - the judge ruled that they weren't an Employment Business, so you couldn't opt out of the regulations.
Having seen how the agency do business, though, it seems more of an eye-opener to avoid this particular agency regardless of the rules - which is a shame because having met some of the people there, I know and like quite a few of them.Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI hadn't really understood this 'pwned' expression until I read DirtyDog's post.Comment
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostNo - they were being sued and won - CUK article.
The agency withheld £15k of invoices for work that had been done, and tried to claim an extra £39k because he wanted to bypass the agency and go direct.
"So the judge decided that ultimately, “the issue before me” is whether CNL meets the definition of an ‘employment business,’ as defined under the Employment Agencies Act." - the judge ruled that they weren't an Employment Business, so you couldn't opt out of the regulations.
Having seen how the agency do business, though, it seems more of an eye-opener to avoid this particular agency regardless of the rules - which is a shame because having met some of the people there, I know and like quite a few of them.
I'm with Lisa - it would have been interesting to say which way it would have gone if the contractor had been explicitly opted-in.
(But I'm very pleased I'm not an Oracle contractor...)"I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
- Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...Comment
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostNo - they were being sued and won - CUK article.
The agency withheld £15k of invoices for work that had been done, and tried to claim an extra £39k because he wanted to bypass the agency and go direct.
"So the judge decided that ultimately, “the issue before me” is whether CNL meets the definition of an ‘employment business,’ as defined under the Employment Agencies Act." - the judge ruled that they weren't an Employment Business, so you couldn't opt out of the regulations.
Having seen how the agency do business, though, it seems more of an eye-opener to avoid this particular agency regardless of the rules - which is a shame because having met some of the people there, I know and like quite a few of them.Comment
-
Originally posted by craig1 View PostNot really wanting to take this off-topic but is that judgement the first time a judge has said that a late opt-out is ineffective? I thought that point hadn't been tested before."I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
- Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...Comment
-
I am Rory Dwyer, I am not hiding anything, given my moniker, I am sharing the months if not years of expertise that I have gained in defending an action brought by the BIS.
I would say that when you face criminal convictions your level of research goes a lot deeper than what is required for a five second sound bite.
If you would like to know why the "Conduct Reg's" are virtually unenforceable I am more than happy to share with you.Last edited by Rory Dwyer; 10 March 2014, 23:42.Comment
-
Originally posted by DirtyDog View PostNo - what Mal and the PCG have suggested is that you don't want to opt out of the agency regulations.
And it has zip to do with IR35. Never has, never will. If you fail IR35, it's because you've either signed up a rubbish contract or are genuinely and demonstrably not in business on your own account.
What the agent is saying is that there is no point in opting out because unless you can show that the agency is an Employment Business (which in some cases is easier than others), you can't enforce the regulations anyway, so you may as well opt out.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
What I am saying, is that regardless of whether you opt in or opt out of the "Conduct Regs" the statute will not be enforceable if you as a sole director of a PSC and your hirer are not willing to argue that the contractor has handed over predominant control to that hirer.
That is a very difficult argument to make for a number of reasons. Of which should you wish to know why, I will elaborate. To say it has nothing to do with IR35 is misunderstanding the legislation.
I am not on here to gloat at all, having been a contractor myself. If you knew what the contractor did, then you would realise the stance we took.Last edited by Rory Dwyer; 10 March 2014, 15:59.Comment
-
Originally posted by craig1 View PostNot really wanting to take this off-topic but is that judgement the first time a judge has said that a late opt-out is ineffective? I thought that point hadn't been tested before.Last edited by Rory Dwyer; 10 March 2014, 16:02.Comment
-
Originally posted by Rory Dwyer View PostIf you knew what the contractor did, then you would realise the stance we took.Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI hadn't really understood this 'pwned' expression until I read DirtyDog's post.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- ‘Four interest rate cuts in 2025’ not echoed by contractor advisers Today 08:24
- ‘Why Should We Hire You?’ How to answer as an IT contractor Yesterday 09:30
- Even IT contractors connect with 'New Year, New Job.' But… Jan 6 09:28
- Which IT contractor skills will be top five in 2025? Jan 2 09:08
- Secondary NI threshold sinking to £5,000: a limited company director’s explainer Dec 24 09:51
- Reeves sets Spring Statement 2025 for March 26th Dec 23 09:18
- Spot the hidden contractor Dec 20 10:43
- Accounting for Contractors Dec 19 15:30
- Chartered Accountants with MarchMutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants with March Mutual Dec 19 15:05
Comment