Sticking out a boring contract

[jmo21]

Like working on one side of Exeter, for instance,and then the other. Still the same place really.

A contractor friend of mine rejected an extension that would take him over the 24 month limit. His next role was approx 2 mile drive away.

The role before the almost 24 month one, was less than a miles drive away.

I explained to him what I knew on HMRC rules about travel being significantly different etc.

He said "My accountant says it's cool".

I tried.

[Scoobos]

Kanye, Do yourself a favour and keep invoicing. Bordom is a small price to pay for a wedge of cash at the end of the week. There will be plenty of time on the bench at some point theres no reason to invite it...

Having been there, stuck it out and felt the joy of getting a decent contract next - this is my sentiment exactly.

[FRS]

How would you have felt if you jumped ship and the other contract got pulled leaving you to spend the next few months on the bench? Last year I was in a situation where the client co said no more renewals. I got a gig lined up for me an a few of the other guys that were also going out the door. The new client was HP. They were a farse. They spent the next 3 months trying to get the paperwork sorted internally. I had a few months left to run with the current gig so it wasn't an issue. However with 2 days to go till the start of the new gig they turned round and said "Hey we know we waisted 8 weeks getting the last set of sign offs from 6 levels of managers above us but they just did a project review and canned you and your team..." "Hope you can find something else at late notice..." As it was I had no intention of handing my notice in at the current gig as I had seen them miss three previous start dates, and the no more renewals stance changed to an end of this year renewal...

Just to clarify I never handed in my notice. I worked out the 6 month contract as I agreed when I signed it.

I would of been gutted if the new contract was pulled, but if it had I would dig into my warchest and go look for something else. That's part and parcel of being a contractor, isn't it?

[Mr.Whippy]

No, because its where the job is, not where you live ie the job is in the same geographical area.

I know that, did you actually read my post?

The journey has to be significantly different to be claimable.

Stratford to CW and then changing Stratford to Westminster would different imo when you take the whole journey into account.

Whereas Birmingham to CW and then changing Birmingham to Westminster would not be "significantly" different when you take the whole journey into account.

[Scrag Meister]

Do you go to the Ferry boat in much? That used to be a nice pub for a beer. Used to quite like wandering down the canal to the Princess of wales by the Ice Rink as well. Not a bad Sunday walk.

Occasionally pop in there after work when the OH picks me up at Tottenham Hale, as you say its a nice pub, food is not too bad. Nice beer garden if the weather is good too.

[bobspud]

Just to clarify I never handed in my notice. I worked out the 6 month contract as I agreed when I signed it.

I would of been gutted if the new contract was pulled, but if it had I would dig into my warchest and go look for something else. That's part and parcel of being a contractor, isn't it?

Yes risk is part of the job. However a good business mitigates and reduces risk where ever possible. swapping a contract because you are bored is a high risk strategy. Especially if you end up on reduced rates because you are having to rebuild the war chest.

Instead I try and refocus my attention from crap jobs on the stuff I am getting done outside work. (I am re-renovating our home at the moment.) My current client has been a bit of hard work at times but last year they paid out: £10k on my new office, £5k's worth of new IT equipment for me, £10k on a re-modeled garden complete with new patio. £5k on setting up a games room for the kids.. I have 3 more jobs left to get through. The extension till the end of the year came with the caveat of having to work with a complete arse of a client. So role on boring jobs that pay the bills.

[Scrag Meister]

Stratford to CW and then changing Stratford to Westminster would different imo when you take the whole journey into account.

Different as a %age of the whole journey maybe, but if I was Hector, I wouldn't see that as different enough in actual distance to reset the 2 year rule.

[bobspud]

Different as a %age of the whole journey maybe, but if I was Hector, I wouldn't see that as different enough in actual distance to reset the 2 year rule.

WHS +1

The final sentence nails the lid shut. I'm still looking for the one that explains this in the context of the 24 month rule.

Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: when a workplace ceases to be a permanent workplace

found it !

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32280.htm

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32282.htm
So for anyone living and working in London its rather hard to get travel paid for.

[Mr.Whippy]

Different as a %age of the whole journey maybe, but if I was Hector, I wouldn't see that as different enough in actual distance to reset the 2 year rule.

I would.

Look at this link from HRMC. An example where someone working on a bridge building contract on the northern shore of a river can then move to the southern shore of the same river, building the same bridge but it's a "different" location because it "takes him longer to travel to the south shore than it did to travel to the north shore. It also costs him more."

In my example, travelling to Westminster from Stratford instead of CW will likely cost more and take longer, so where's the difference?

As for the time, cost & distance thing. If you lived in a town on the M1 and worked somewhere 5 miles north on the M1 and then changed to somewhere 5 miles south on the M1, the time, cost & distance would be pretty much identical but they're 10 miles apart... would that be the same location according to Hector?

[bobspud]

I would.

Look at this link from HRMC. An example where someone working on a bridge building contract on the northern shore of a river can then move to the southern shore of the same river, building the same bridge but it's a "different" location because it "takes him longer to travel to the south shore than it did to travel to the north shore. It also costs him more."

In my example, travelling to Westminster from Stratford instead of CW will likely cost more and take longer, so where's the difference?

As for the time, cost & distance thing. If you lived in a town on the M1 and worked somewhere 5 miles north on the M1 and then changed to somewhere 5 miles south on the M1, the time, cost & distance would be pretty much identical but they're 10 miles apart... would that be the same location according to Hector?

taken from the third of my links:
An employee works for an employer who has several offices close to each other in London. Her employer rotates staff around the offices every 18 months. She works at one office and is then moved to another. She travels to work on the Underground and, although she now gets off ten stops further on than previously, her journey is largely unaltered and the price of her ticket does not change.

When you travelled to CW did you buy a weekly 1-3 Travel card or a return DLR ticket? If you bought a travelcard then the journey cost between westminster and CW has not substantially changed has it? And you would still be in the same geographical area (London)...

The north south of the M1 is clearly a new location because the journey has substantially and geographically changed.