• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

There are cnuts everywhere!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by milanbenes View Post
    how can a truck driver self employed

    sounds like a good case for ir35

    surely you can only drive one truck at a time and therefore only have one client at a time ?

    Milan.
    One truck can carry lots of freight originating from lots of sources and destined for lots of places.

    According to your idea of ir35 a person who runs a small cake shop would be caught out as he can only sell a cake to one person at a time.
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by milanbenes View Post
      how can a truck driver self employed

      sounds like a good case for ir35

      surely you can only drive one truck at a time and therefore only have one client at a time ?
      Actually truck driving has been tested and the driver won the IR35 case. Not so many do it now after the MSC legislation as its mostly not worth running a ltd for the savings - unless you have another use for it. B&C even defended a driver in an IR35 case. The IR claimed that him not being able to smoke in the lorry (pre smoking ban) was D&C therefore employment. The bloke drove a petrol tanker.

      The driving will probably be for 3 or 4 different companies in a week so can pass the multi client part of IR35. When I'm contracting I can only operate one PC at a time

      Comment


        #13
        he he

        I knew it was a rubbish argument when I wrote it but thought it was funny to see what the academics would come back with :-)

        Milan.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Sockpuppet View Post
          The wannabe examiner failed me for "almost hitting a kerb". In his words "I didn't think you'd fit through that gap but you did ... was convinced you were going to hit the kerbs".

          I asked him if I hit the kerbs and he said no but that wasn't the point. "I didn't think you'd make it." Bloody jobs worth.
          Presumably he considered you to have taken an unacceptable risk and failed you on that. Even though you didn't actually have an accident (no doubt through your skill and experience) he was still entitled to assess you as someone who might well have an accident if they carried on driving like that (even though we know that that is absolutely not the case).

          It's not dissimilar to being caught by a speed camera and fined when you've actually been speeding on the roads for years and never had a single accident.

          Comment


            #15
            I was pulled recently by the plod (I think he was miffed because I overtook his scooby in my Jeep on an A road). he said he had pulled me because "you nearly crossed the double white lines". Nearly!. After a bit of a lecture, he let me on my way. twonk.

            Comment


              #16
              I have a friend (barmaid at local actually) who works in driving recruitment.

              She says it is currently dead - this is in the North West area.

              Although it may just be the agency she works for are crap and have no contracts I suppose.

              Comment

              Working...
              X