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

[tractor]

...

I have clearly communicated that the contractor had opted out of the "Conduct Regs"

But you haven't clearly communicated why there was an issue 'proving' your point - to reiterate, what did the contract say?

[tractor]

...

Please read the regulations before commenting. There is no requirement to state what the status of control is

More fud! The issue is not about control, the issue I have a problem with is whether you passed yourself off as an employment business up to the point of signing the contract and then claimed that you weren't subsequently. So again, what did the contract state?

As for reading the regulations, there is a legal requirement to state in your communications whether you are acting as an employment agent or business in relation to any particular placement/role. You see it on every email that comes from an agent.

If the contract was silent on the matter of opt-out status and there was no other corroborative evidence, we get back to the element of wriggle and you simply found a loophole and got off on a technicality.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I am providing the judgements of Justice Sales and District Judge Workmen. You can choose to ignore them or take them on board. Prior to the thread I started I am pretty sure that you were unaware of both. Given that the precedent in the Justice Sales judgement directly concerns the "Conduct Regs" and the judges interpretation, you can now make future decision in a more informed fashion. Some might even thank me for it!

The comments made by Justice Sales in the Accenture case don't set a precedent for judgments in cases concerning the Conduct Regs at all - the case was brought to determine whether or not a VAT concession was applicable

[Rory Dwyer]

The comments made by Justice Sales in the Accenture case don't set a precedent for judgments in cases concerning the Conduct Regs at all - the case was brought to determine whether or not a VAT concession was applicable

Shall I tell District Judge Workmen he was wrong or do you want to ? Shall I give you the number of the BIS barrister and tell them they were wrong not to appeal on a point of law ?

[Rory Dwyer]

But you haven't clearly communicated why there was an issue 'proving' your point - to reiterate, what did the contract say?

I have clearly stated and will state again, our contracts stated we were an employment business supplying an individual through his respective PSC who was not under either the significant or predominant control of the higher.

Please stop asking the same question, it is hurting my fingers to keep repeating the same answer.

[Rory Dwyer]

More fud! The issue is not about control, the issue I have a problem with is whether you passed yourself off as an employment business up to the point of signing the contract and then claimed that you weren't subsequently. So again, what did the contract state?

As for reading the regulations, there is a legal requirement to state in your communications whether you are acting as an employment agent or business in relation to any particular placement/role. You see it on every email that comes from an agent.

If the contract was silent on the matter of opt-out status and there was no other corroborative evidence, we get back to the element of wriggle and you simply found a loophole and got off on a technicality.

I have shared with you the judges ruling. Please read it and then try to answer the question for yourself.

[tractor]

...

I have clearly stated and will state again, our contracts stated we were an employment business supplying an individual through his respective PSC who was not under either the significant or predominant control of the higher.

Please stop asking the same question, it is hurting my fingers to keep repeating it.

For the fourth time, did the contract have an explicit clause stating that the supplier had opted out? Please stop not answering the question! In any event, you brought all this here, don't be surprised that people will question it.

For the avoidance of doubt, you have not stated what your contract said in relation to OPT OUT. Please now state what the contract actually said in this respect. Once again, if the contract was silent and there was no corroborative evidence otherwise, the supplier was NOT opted out! That had to be the intention of both parties (at the time) even if at a later stage, one or other or both parties decided to change their point of view.

[Rory Dwyer]

For the fourth time, did the contract have an explicit clause stating that the supplier had opted out? Please stop not answering the question! In any event, you brought all this here, don't be surprised that people will question it.

For the avoidance of doubt, you have not stated what your contract said in relation to OPT OUT. Please now state what the contract actually said in this respect. Once again, if the contract was silent and there was no corroborative evidence otherwise, the supplier was NOT opted out! That had to be the intention of both parties (at the time) even if at a later stage, one or other or both parties decided to change their point of view.

As I am sure that you are aware, there is more than one contract, one between the intermediary and the work seeker and one which is a declaration of opt out by the individual supplied by the work seeker and the work seeker. The intermediary is not a party to that declaration.

Please promise that you will not ask that question again. I am thinking of having it framed and sent to you!

[tractor]

...

As I am sure that you are aware, there is more than one contract, one between the intermediary and the work seeker and one which is a declaration of opt out by the individual supplied by the work seeker and the work seeker. The intermediary is not a party to that declaration.

Thanks for again failing to answer the question.

My conclusion is that it will be a long, long time before your and my companies ever do business.

I just noticed your edit. You cannot blame people for repeatedly asking a question that you refuse to answer, however sarcastic you become. You really think that most of us over periods of 20 or more years have never had to deal with agents that refuse to answer questions or God forbid, even tell an actual lie?

[Rory Dwyer]

Thanks for again failing to answer the question.

My conclusion is that it will be a long, long time before your and my companies ever do business.

If you insist on declaring that you are under the predominant control of the hirer, it was never going to be an opportunity that you could avail yourself of.

Northernladuk said that you would respect me more if I gave as good as I got, I guess he must have been wrong