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

[tractor]

...

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

Agents and respect are two words you rarely, if ever find in the same sentence, sorry to burst your bubble. Especially when you keep proferring the same false dichotomy above.

[Old Greg]

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.

My brother's an Oracle contractor. I've pointed his nose in the direction of this thread.

[Rory Dwyer]

My brother's an Oracle contractor. I've pointed his nose in the direction of this thread.

Good, he might learn something. These judgements affect every engagement where there is a PSC and the individual supplied by that PSC is the sole director.

You might not like their judgements, but that is the way it is. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Rory Dwyer]

Agents and respect are two words you rarely, if ever find in the same sentence, sorry to burst your bubble. Especially when you keep proferring the same false dichotomy above.

Well, I can only speak for ourselves, and we fully respect the contractors, given that I was one. You may think that we are the few, and you may be right. But the dichotomy is not ours. We were very clear on who and what we are and that never changed.

[TheFaQQer]

I did not say that we would not enter into a contract where the contractor does not opt out of the Conduct Regulations at all.

I wouldn't let reality affect your delusions.

So, you'd be happy for a contractor who owns 100% of their business to remain opted into the regulations? You (and I'm including any employee of CNL or any of their trading names, parent or child firms) would be happy to offer a contract which does not include an opt out clause, but still includes an unfettered right of substitution and a lack of MOO clause?

The ultimate question is - if you found a contract that I was suitable for, and the client wanted me for the role, would you offer a contract which meets those requirements, or would you only do an opt-out contract?

[Old Greg]

Good, he might learn something. These judgements affect every engagement where there is a PSC and the individual supplied by that PSC is the sole director.

You might not like their judgements, but that is the way it is. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think he has learned something.

And hate? Why on earth would anyone hate you?

[tractor]

Well, I can only speak for ourselves, and we fully respect the contractors, given that I was one. You may think that we are the few, and you may be right. But the dichotomy is not ours. We were very clear on who and what we are and that never changed.

If you were holding onto my £15k and refusing to pay it, I would call that something other than respect.

The dichotomy may not be yours but the way you present it is false.

[TheFaQQer]

Good, he might learn something. These judgements affect every engagement where there is a PSC and the individual supplied by that PSC is the sole director.

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?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

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 ?

Point me towards the trial transcript, I will read the whole thing and then apologise if I was wrong in what I said

[Old Greg]

Point me towards the trial transcript, I will read the whole thing and then apologise if I was wrong in what I said

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