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

[Old Greg]

Old Greg is right and whilst we are getting back on the topic of the thread, it's title seems to imply and actually STATES (and this is where we all came in) that if you cede control within the EAA and Conduct Regs context, that equates to a master/servant relationship in the context of IR35.

To which you say "I say it does, and by making a declaration of opting into the "Conduct Regs" you are as a consequence declaring that you have handed over predominant control of yourself and your PSC to your hirer."

Many of us disagree and you have spectacularly failed to persuade otherwise. Just because you have a criminal judgement in your favour over one part of two distinct regulations that are notoriously difficult to interpret and where the judiciary, civil or criminal regularly fail to agree and which is desperately short of case law, you think and offer it as a fait accompli because it suits your own perspective.

It is not. I see it as just another piece of FUD that agents will use to elbow contractors into opting out when they do not wish to.

And once again, there is no legal definition of a PSC. Lastly, predominant control, which seems to be a term coined by the judge in this case to clarify the meaning of 'control' is entirely different to 'Direction and control' within the meaning of IR35.

Exactamundo.

[Rory Dwyer]

Old Greg is right and whilst we are getting back on the topic of the thread, it's title seems to imply and actually STATES (and this is where we all came in) that if you cede control within the EAA and Conduct Regs context, that equates to a master/servant relationship in the context of IR35.

To which you say "I say it does, and by making a declaration of opting into the "Conduct Regs" you are as a consequence declaring that you have handed over predominant control of yourself and your PSC to your hirer."

Many of us disagree and you have spectacularly failed to persuade otherwise. Just because you have a criminal judgement in your favour over one part of two distinct regulations that are notoriously difficult to interpret and where the judiciary, civil or criminal regularly fail to agree and which is desperately short of case law, you think and offer it as a fait accompli because it suits your own perspective.

It is not. I see it as just another piece of FUD that agents will use to elbow contractors into opting out when they do not wish to.

And once again, there is no legal definition of a PSC. Lastly, predominant control, which seems to be a term coined by the judge in this case to clarify the meaning of 'control' is entirely different to 'Direction and control' within the meaning of IR35.

Okay, no problem, we will agree to disagree. My goal was to bring the issue to your attention and then to walk through the reasoning behind the judgements.

Whether you wish to agree or disagree with that reasoning, is completely your choice and one that I respect your right to make.

There will be many further readers of this thread who can make their own decisions, one way or another.

I feel I have achieved the purpose of bringing this issue to your attention.

My job is done here.

Best of luck with your future. I have enjoyed sparring with you.

Adios

[Old Greg]

Okay, no problem, we will agree to disagree. My goal was to bring the issue to your attention and then to walk through the reasoning behind the judgements.

Whether you wish to agree or disagree with that reasoning, is completely your choice and one that I respect your right to make.

There will be many further readers of this thread who can make their own decisions, one way or another.

I feel I have achieved the purpose of bringing this issue to your attention.

My job is done here.

Best of luck with your future. I have enjoyed sparring with you.

Adios

Good move.

[TheFaQQer]

Adios

This makes me glum

[northernladuk]

The answer is clearly 42.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I have a written copy of the judgement but no link

Would you let me see it? lisa@contractorumbrella.com

[Old Greg]

Would you let me see it? lisa@contractorumbrella.com

I think you've got yourself a new signature, Lisa.

[MyUserName]

Would you let me see it? lisa@contractorumbrella.com

Of course - photo sent.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I think you've got yourself a new signature, Lisa.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Of course - photo sent.

And you