The "Conduct Reg's" are virtually unenforceable against your intermediary

[Old Greg]

I have clearly answered this question multiple times

Can you summarise please? There are 15 pages to wade through.

[TheFaQQer]

I have clearly answered this question multiple times

Actually, you haven't. The closest was this exchange:

So what's the answer - how honest and ethical were you when you included that clause in the contract?

Dear Dirty Dog,

The contract that was used as our base contract was the REC contract.

In relation to answering your ethical question CNL was always of the opinion that the highly skilled contractors that we supplied, like myself, were not under the control of their respective hirers. Given the ambiguity that surrounds the myriad of legislation concerning this and many other areas (hence why this legislation is up for red tape review). As a second tier precaution, and to remove any ambiguity surrounding what legislation applied the contractor opted out and the hirer was aware of this opt out.

Unless I've missed it, in which case you can just point me to the exact post where you answered whether the clause was left in by ignorance, incompetence or fraud.

[TheFaQQer]

Can you summarise please? There are 15 pages to wade through.

Set your preferences to display 40 posts per page. Then there are only four pages to read through.

HTH.

[Old Greg]

Set your preferences to display 40 posts per page. Then there are only four pages to read through.

HTH.

CBA

[Rory Dwyer]

Actually, you haven't. The closest was this exchange:





Unless I've missed it, in which case you can just point me to the exact post where you answered whether the clause was left in by ignorance, incompetence or fraud.

None of the above, and the more times you ask the same question will have no influence on the answer given

[TheFaQQer]

I have clearly answered this question multiple times

None of the above, and the more times you ask the same question will have no influence on the answer given

So, you've not clearly answered the question multiple times. If you had, you'd be able to provide an example of where you've answered it.

Just one of the clear answers will do - you don't have to show the multiple times you've answered the question.

Come on, Rory - show us one post where you have clearly answered the question.

[Rory Dwyer]

So, you've not clearly answered the question multiple times. If you had, you'd be able to provide an example of where you've answered it.

Just one of the clear answers will do - you don't have to show the multiple times you've answered the question.

Come on, Rory - show us one post where you have clearly answered the question.

CNL, at all times, in relation to the engagement in question considered itself an employment business supplying an individual through his respective PSC NOT under the predominant control of the hirer.

It will stay the same answer no matter how many times you ask the question.

[SueEllen]

I wish an admin would close this thread as it's going round in cycles.

[Wanderer]

In relation to the clients position, I am very confident that, any statements made by any hirers would have been made without them being aware of the obligations of ancillary legislation.

If they were aware of their obligations re tax and consolidated reporting, they would run a mile from an opt in.

Really! Can you enlighten us as to what "tax and consolidated reporting" obligations or "controlled associated companies legislation" that the opt out of the Agency Regulations frees the client from because I can't think of any and to be honest, it just sounds like FUD spreading to me.

In summary, opt in or opt out, it matters not a jot to me

All the agents start off by saying that - until you tell them you aren't going to opt out and then they go ballistic.

I have started this thread for the readers of this forums benefit, some people would pay good money for the information I have imparted.

My advice here also comes with a guarantee - see the bottom of this message...

[Rory Dwyer]

Really! Can you enlighten us as to what "tax and consolidated reporting" obligations or "controlled associated companies legislation" that the opt out of the Agency Regulations frees the client from because I can't think of any and to be honest, it just sounds like FUD spreading to me.

RORY : CTM03730, s 13 ICTA 1988, S416, CTA2010/S450, S451 and S1069(3) specifically in relation to CTM60210 - Close companies “CTM 60220”.

All the agents start off by saying that - until you tell them you aren't going to opt out and then they go ballistic.

Rory : The virtual majority of the individuals that we deal with opt out of their own volition, those few that don't, I would wager do not operate outside of IR35. I really don't have an opinion on whether you personally opt out but I am bringing to your attention, the considerations you need to bear in mind



My advice here also comes with a guarantee - see the bottom of this message...

I am not providing advice, just sharing with you the judgements of Justice Sales and District Judge Workmen. What you do with that information is your look out.