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!
so blanket inside assessments and everybody through a brolly?
Not necessarily. Why go through all the pain of a meaningless "assessment" process? I would simply state that as of X date I will not accept LtdCo contractors and everyone should now go via a brolly if I were a client. Job done.
I thought so. To clarify, the clients will say to themselves that everyone is inside and to avoid the hassles, every contractor who wishes to provide services to them must do so through a brolly.
Seems to be some confusion here. For outside contracts, none of this admin applies. For inside contracts, I doubt they are going to bother with payroll. They will push that off to an umbrella or offer FTCs (proper temp employment w/ standard PAYE accounting). Either way, I think this article describes a massive disincentive to blanket inside *and* to handle the payroll internally.
Seems to be some confusion here. For outside contracts, none of this admin applies. For inside contracts, I doubt they are going to bother with payroll. They will push that off to an umbrella or offer FTCs (proper temp employment w/ standard PAYE accounting). Either way, I think this article describes a massive disincentive to blanket inside *and* to handle the payroll internally.
yes, but I would contend that clients wouldn't want any hassle, so they are likely to offload all roles to a brolly. It's an easier decision rather than attempting any assessments at all. Granted, they'd have to weigh up the possible negative affects on their business, but I guess short term considerations would prevail.
yes, but I would contend that clients wouldn't want any hassle, so they are likely to offload all roles to a brolly. It's an easier decision rather than attempting any assessments at all. Granted, they'd have to weigh up the possible negative affects on their business, but I guess short term considerations would prevail.
Clients that want contractors will bother because, well, that is the law. Clients that don't, won't, obviously. Of the subset that don't, some will offer FTCs. Of the subset that don't offer FTCs, few will operate payroll themselves, I expect. That is my point. So most of that article is pointless and your OP about there now being "more reasons" to make a blanket inside determination is not coherent.
There is "a" reason to avoid contractors altogether, namely that it's their responsibility to make a determination now, but that reason has existed since the proposal was announced and has nothing to do with "blanketing". Blanketing means issuing an SDS that says "this contract is inside" and repeating that for a group of contracts. Umbrella companies have employees. So I think the confusion partly stems from your confused use of terminology and partly from nothing having changed recently.
Comment