Does control influence whether an engagement is one of for service or of service ?

[tractor]

...

Will CNL continue to state in their contracts that they are acting as an employment business or will they now remove this statement?

The OP is so entrenched in his delusion that he is doing us all a favour that he is unable to comprehend what you are asking.

As for FaQQer's question not getting an answer, I have been not getting an answer all day even though the OP is convinced beyond all doubt that he is answering the question. Unfortunately he answers his own questions and ignores ours.

This thread could go on until doomsday and he still won't get it

[tractor]

If you set up a competing business to the company that you were in contract with and then attempted to obtain the proprietary assets of that company, causing significant loss and damage by your actions.

I would see you in court for breach of contract, because you would have disrespected your contracted party and the contract.

If you can't see the wrong in that behaviour, then you don't know the meaning of respect and where respect is warranted it is warranted both ways.

And in any event, as I have previously stated, even if the transaction was one covered by the Conduct Reg, which it wasn't, you wouldn't be protected anyhow.

There are legal remedies available to you in those circumstances and I understand that you are going through a case atm. However, were you to lose it, would you pay up? In 30 years of business I have yet to see that happen. The usual modus operandi is to prepare for the worst, lose all the funds and close up.

There are many stories of agents trumping up accusations to avoid payment. Where the contract permits, it is perfectly legal, which is why before signature I will insist on losing any such clauses. And if the agent resists (after all their board meetings - AKA quick coffee in Costa) they can do one

[Rory Dwyer]

Will CNL continue to state in their contracts that they are acting as an employment business or will they now remove this statement?

How many times do I have to give you the same answer.

Our contracts state that we are an employment business that does NOT supply individuals supplied by the work seeker or the work seeker itself under any significant control let alone predominant control of the intermediary or the hirer.

A contract statement, that the vast majority if not all (should they understand the implications) readily accept and support given their respective positions with regards to IR35

[Rory Dwyer]

There are legal remedies available to you in those circumstances and I understand that you are going through a case atm. However, were you to lose it, would you pay up? In 30 years of business I have yet to see that happen. The usual modus operandi is to prepare for the worst, lose all the funds and close up.

There are many stories of agents trumping up accusations to avoid payment. Where the contract permits, it is perfectly legal, which is why before signature I will insist on losing any such clauses. And if the agent resists (after all their board meetings - AKA quick coffee in Costa) they can do one

You assume that our case is against the contractor. I can not comment for the reasons previously stated. We have reached the point where I can not comment any further as they are verging on the current civil proceedings.

As I said previously, this was one of circa 20 contractors and the only one we took issue with was the one who caused us irreparable damage, because he broke his contract.

Re Costa, I don't like coffee and approved contractor contract alterations rarely happen.

Re losing all funds and closing up, I have already explained, that any self respecting company with integrity would not do that. I have already stated that the owners of the business took the losses and damages on the chin and are now seeking to recover those from interested parties.

An unscrupulous unethical enterprise may have done as you have suggested and not paid innocent parties and shut up shop.

We didn't do that, and if we had, it would not be a wise move to declare that we did on a public forum where that could be challenged. A cursory look at the company accounts will give a clear indication of the position that CNL found itself due to the actions of this contractor and others.

As previously stated, the ramifications of this situation forced CNL to cease trading with significant losses borne by the owners.

Does that make us the exception that proves a rule ? I can't answer that, as I don't know.

But if I am correct, which I know I am, then surely that should be respected.

[Rory Dwyer]

The OP is so entrenched in his delusion that he is doing us all a favour that he is unable to comprehend what you are asking.

As for FaQQer's question not getting an answer, I have been not getting an answer all day even though the OP is convinced beyond all doubt that he is answering the question. Unfortunately he answers his own questions and ignores ours.

This thread could go on until doomsday and he still won't get it

The readers of this thread can make their own determination whether I have answered the question or not. Just like the BIS, you just don't like my answer, that's your issue not mine, because it doesn't suit their purpose but it won't change the answer given, as it is the truth.

If I am so deluded, what drugs did I manage to slip into DJ Workmens's Costa Coffee, to delude him as well ?

[Rory Dwyer]

The OP is so entrenched in his delusion that he is doing us all a favour that he is unable to comprehend what you are asking.

As for FaQQer's question not getting an answer, I have been not getting an answer all day even though the OP is convinced beyond all doubt that he is answering the question. Unfortunately he answers his own questions and ignores ours.

This thread could go on until doomsday and he still won't get it

Okay guys, you win, the Accenture Services v HMRC case and the BIS v CNL case were all a figment of my imagination.

IR35 has no relation to the control status between the individual supplied and the other parties.

If you seek to rely on the "Conduct Regulations" without proving that you have passed over predominant control, you will still have all the protection the "Conduct Regs" offer.

The hirers will not have to be at all concerned with controlled associated companies legislation.

I will just take a quick look for the abundance of precedent setting cases that support my new position and share them with you. Whilst I am doing that, I won't be able to stop myself tripping over all of the cases where there is a master/servant relationship but the contract is a contract for service and not a contract of service and then readily share them with the readers of this thread.

I will stop taking any drugs that make me delusional and I can go back to your way of thinking that everything is all right in the world.


Ahhhhhh, that's better !!

Are we all good now ?

It's nice over here, nothing to worry about at all !!

No need to support my position with independent sources or corroborating references, just spout what I want and expect the other individuals to accept what I say as read. It's a hell of a lot easier.

[Rory Dwyer]

So appoint another director and it's irrelevant

I haven't read every post yet - has someone pointed out that the term PSC has no legal meaning and only exists in the mind of HMRC?

This is the first comment that we can have a proper discussion on.

Re PSC, you are correct, there is no legal term to define one, but it is readily accepted that it constitutes a company with a sole director who is the main if not sole revenue generator.

And so we can now move into the realms of what a contractor can do based on the judgements.

"So appoint another director and it's irrelevant"

I wouldn't go quite so far as irrelevant but it may muddy the waters.

The directors share ownership or relationship to the other director (i.e. wife/husband/child etc.) or any other shareholder would trump the fact that there are two directors from a control stand point.

Additionally, it is not clear (and the BIS refused to answer the question under a FOI request) whether the statute related to a natural person or a work seeker.

From what I have read, I can't be sure. The individual is definitely the one that the rulings refer to, but if you have predominant control over the individual and that individual has control of the workseeker then they in my opinion are one in the same.

But this discussion would be a helpful line of enquiry, unfortunately I don't believe we could conclude one way or another.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Lisa, you are either very sure of yourself or you have forgotten Rule 2 of CUK.

huh

[Old Greg]

huh

Never apologise.

[Old Greg]

You assume that our case is against the contractor. I can not comment for the reasons previously stated. We have reached the point where I can not comment any further as they are verging on the current civil proceedings.

As I said previously, this was one of circa 20 contractors and the only one we took issue with was the one who caused us irreparable damage, because he broke his contract.

Re Costa, I don't like coffee and approved contractor contract alterations rarely happen.

Re losing all funds and closing up, I have already explained, that any self respecting company with integrity would not do that. I have already stated that the owners of the business took the losses and damages on the chin and are now seeking to recover those from interested parties.

An unscrupulous unethical enterprise may have done as you have suggested and not paid innocent parties and shut up shop.

We didn't do that, and if we had, it would not be a wise move to declare that we did on a public forum where that could be challenged. A cursory look at the company accounts will give a clear indication of the position that CNL found itself due to the actions of this contractor and others.

As previously stated, the ramifications of this situation forced CNL to cease trading with significant losses borne by the owners.

Does that make us the exception that proves a rule ? I can't answer that, as I don't know.

But if I am correct, which I know I am, then surely that should be respected.

Rory, have a read over your posts and ask yourself: if you were an open minded reasonable contractor, would your posts make you more or less likely to do business with you?