Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[jamesbrown]

Yes, I was attempting to add weight to your point (and clearly failed !)

😀

Sorry, my fault, I just misread what you had intended. Whether they will mandate the online tool via procurement is anyone's guess, but it didn't sound like it from the meetings shortly after the AS. See here, for example. Anyway, I'm not sure it matters that much. The main issue is that the client will determine status. I suppose some latitude may help for specialist gigs where the online tool could be very objectionable (in content and weighting), akin to the BETs.

[jamesbrown]

However, the PS will need to be able to justify why they've reached the determination that they have, much easier if you go with the tool.


(3) If the information which subsection (1) requires the client to give to
a person has been given (whether in the contract, as required by
subsection (2) or otherwise), the client must, on a written request by
the person, provide the person with a written response to any
questions raised by the person about the client’s reasons for reaching
the conclusion identified in the information.

(4) A response required by subsection (2) or (3) must be provided before
the end of 31 days beg

Yep, they'll definitely need to justify it. I guess it's fairly down in the weeds, in practice, but I think the main issue in this narrow area is whether some PS clients could exploit the latitude from not having the online tool mandated by procurement. I'd rather trust the judgement of someone at the PS client that can circumvent the online tool. OTOH, perhaps they'll learn how to play the game with the online tool in such (unusual) cases.

[youngguy]

Sorry, my fault, I just misread what you had intended. Whether they will mandate the online tool via procurement is anyone's guess, but it didn't sound like it from the meetings shortly after the AS. See here, for example. Anyway, I'm not sure it matters that much. The main issue is that the client will determine status. I suppose some latitude may help for specialist gigs where the online tool could be very objectionable (in content and weighting), akin to the BETs.

I was thinking of exactly that - I was in a ps role AFTER BETs had been scrapped and the dept was still mandating they be completed. It was madness.

I wonder what agencies will do, given their costs go up. Do they pass those to the client or the contractor ........?

[coolhandluke]

Current PS client asked today about an extension past April 2017. Client muted the possibility of working through a consultancy that deliver the infrastructure to get round the potential changes.

All other contractors and a few of the project managers have stated there is no change and it's business as usual.

Agent is still saying hold tight until the New Year and see what pans out. Think he right for once!

[eek]

Current PS client asked today about an extension past April 2017. Client muted the possibility of working through a consultancy that deliver the infrastructure to get round the potential changes.

All other contractors and a few of the project managers have stated there is no change and it's business as usual.

Agent is still saying hold tight until the New Year and see what pans out. Think he right for once!

The more I think about the payments made post April 7th bit the less comfortable I'm getting with wait and see suggestions.

There is a risk that if you are treated as inside after April, HMRC may look at what happened before then and chase you for money on the basis that the entire contract is inside IR35.

That's not to say you shouldn't continue with your contract but think carefully and ignore the leemings you probably don't understand or know what's about to happen.

The leemings are why I suspect HMRC will retrospectively go after the money. There's a lot of money to be made from those who don't and won't know how to fight so will just pay up...

[MrMarkyMark]

The more I think about the payments made post April 7th bit the less comfortable I'm getting with wait and see suggestions.

There is a risk that if you are treated as inside after April, HMRC may look at what happened before then and chase you for money on the basis that the entire contract is inside IR35.

That's not to say you shouldn't continue with your contract but think carefully and ignore the leemings you probably don't understand or know what's about to happen.

The leemings are why I suspect HMRC will retrospectively go after the money. There's a lot of money to be made from those who don't and won't know how to fight so will just pay up...

Absolutely this, apart from the lemmings.

[Lance]

The more I think about the payments made post April 7th bit the less comfortable I'm getting with wait and see suggestions.

There is a risk that if you are treated as inside after April, HMRC may look at what happened before then and chase you for money on the basis that the entire contract is inside IR35.

"Wait and see" shouldn't have a bearing either way. If you're inside after April, arguably you were always inside. Just because you waited and saw doesn't fundamentally change that so it's surely still a risk.

One could argue there is a greater risk if you are seen to be inside after, but arguably you should state clearly, in writing, to your agency that you disagree, but due to the agency not having the power to alter it you are providing notice immediately.
That is surely lower risk than just leaving on 5th April with a question mark over your previous status?

Not my problem as I'm not in PS, and not going to start in PS until after everyone else has waited and seen, but I'm interested the risk mitigation side.

[Semtex]

From a risk mitigation perspective.

finish your contract before April.

[Lance]

From a risk mitigation perspective.

finish your contract before April.

If your working practises actually class you genuinely as outside, how is leaving early going to mitigate against the risk. You may well be found inside by a risk averse civil servant, who doesn't know your practises, and that may result in HMRC coming after you even if you left before April.

Surely staying, and objecting, and leaving if your objections come to nought genuinely gives you a case? This way you have some evidence, and perhaps even your client representative providing some evidence of your genuine outsideness.

[malvolio]

If your working practises actually class you genuinely as outside, how is leaving early going to mitigate against the risk. You may well be found inside by a risk averse civil servant, who doesn't know your practises, and that may result in HMRC coming after you even if you left before April.

Surely staying, and objecting, and leaving if your objections come to nought genuinely gives you a case? This way you have some evidence, and perhaps even your client representative providing some evidence of your genuine outsideness.

If your objections come to naught, as you suggest, then you will be facing a bill for taxes you almost certainly don't owe and won't be able to recover for another year or so. It also doesn't send a message to HMG that their policies are going to decimate PS's access to the flexible skilled workforce they need to survive.

And as I've said earlier, shifting to a consultancy model won't help: not only will their costs go up by 100-200% tp keep the same people they already had, the end contractor will still be caught.

I suspect it's going to be a complete mess no matter what happens, but at least some of us will understand why.