Sky's current thrust

[simes]

Had an email from a friend asking my opinion (He doesn't know how lowly my opinion is considered on this forum so he's none the wiser) on an email from Sky and/or their Agency and/or their external consultant about their current thrust come April.

It doesn't bode well, bless 'em.

In an email to all the contractors received recently, the bullet points are the determination of both The Law, and how it will affect a contractor's status post April. The bits in italics are my responses to him to take back to whomever will listen in Sky or at the agency.

Currently the contractors there are 'believing it to be 'Permanent or nothing' come April. The last is a quote so I don't know if that means brolly or not.

• The worker is not able to substitute someone else to do the work without Sky’s approval (i.e. the right to pay someone else to do the work by the contractor is restricted)

Sky (or any client) being able to reject a particular substitute is absolutely fine. The contractor just needs the Right to suggest and introduce a substitute to remain Outside IR35. This aspect is in the newly updated CEST tool and having tested this personally, when I ticked the box saying a client could reject a sub, I was still placed Outside IR35 (with other questions being considered)

• Sky is obliged to provide work to the worker and they have an obligation to accept it as they’ve signed a contract

This is absolute rubbish and shows that Experis / Sky have not understood anything at all. The obligation to provide work is Not connected to the contract. A contract is a period of time to cover a project. If the work/project in the meantime dries up, you can be let go, and you can leave. Any Other work offered, which is different to what you Were doing, will result in a new contract and a new engagement. That is the demonstration of a lack of Mutuality of Obligation. You do need to take this one back to them quite urgently.

• Sky has a high level of control over where the individual works, what work they do and how they do it

Maybe. But this can be negotiated. Fridays wfh, for example. Also, it is bloody hard to prove.

[eek]

Had an email from a friend asking my opinion (He doesn't know how lowly my opinion is considered on this forum so he's none the wiser) on an email from Sky and/or their Agency and/or their external consultant about their current thrust come April.

It doesn't bode well, bless 'em.

In an email to all the contractors received recently, the bullet points are the determination of both The Law, and how it will affect a contractor's status post April. The bits in italics are my responses to him to take back to whomever will listen in Sky or at the agency.

Currently the contractors there are 'believing it to be 'Permanent or nothing' come April. The last is a quote so I don't know if that means brolly or not.

• The worker is not able to substitute someone else to do the work without Sky’s approval (i.e. the right to pay someone else to do the work by the contractor is restricted)

Sky (or any client) being able to reject a particular substitute is absolutely fine. The contractor just needs the Right to suggest and introduce a substitute to remain Outside IR35. This aspect is in the newly updated CEST tool and having tested this personally, when I ticked the box saying a client could reject a sub, I was still placed Outside IR35 (with other questions being considered)

• Sky is obliged to provide work to the worker and they have an obligation to accept it as they’ve signed a contract

This is absolute rubbish and shows that Experis / Sky have not understood anything at all. The obligation to provide work is Not connected to the contract. A contract is a period of time to cover a project. If the work/project in the meantime dries up, you can be let go, and you can leave. Any Other work offered, which is different to what you Were doing, will result in a new contract and a new engagement. That is the demonstration of a lack of Mutuality of Obligation. You do need to take this one back to them quite urgently.

• Sky has a high level of control over where the individual works, what work they do and how they do it

Maybe. But this can be negotiated. Fridays wfh, for example. Also, it is bloody hard to prove.

Sky will put everyone inside..

[Manic]

Not sure you can rubbish the MoO response. If this is how they see the contract and how they act then MoO exists.

[oliverson]

I wouldn't worry too much because Sky will be dead and buried in due course. The days of mandatory TV licences and Sky bundles of dozens of channels of cr4p, laced with adverts at £ 100+ a month and satellite dishes are thankfully coming to an end. As other firms buy up the rights to the content people really want from Sky, what we will see is a number of micro-subscriptions (Amazon Prime, BT, AN Other, etc) at a fiver a month with no adverts. Bit of a pain having individual apps and subscriptions instead of all on one box but that's the reality. And the laughable thing in these days of 'on demand', I was only yesterday searching for films by a particular actor and found what I was looking for, clicked on the item only to find out it wasn't being broadcast until several days in advance!?!?!? Talk about legacy viewing!! Sky's dominance is over.

[simes]

Not sure you can rubbish the MoO response. If this is how they see the contract and how they act then MoO exists.

From Very personal experience of having been there, I can categorically assure you, it is not.

To clarify, their actions correctly enacted the lack of MoO. Those words above are just a ploy to Sell the Inside verdict.

[MrButton]

What’s the question?

There are plenty of contractors at sky with 5-15 years service under their belts. Many who have been moved between projects without changed contracts. Many who have only come to know about IR35 in the last 6 months.

This is just my experience of knowing a lot of contractors at Osterley.

This is why Sky won’t take the risk.

[simes]

Further to the abvoe, a standard letter has now been issued to All contractors. Minimal information, no understanding, standard email drop box with no assurance there is anyone on the receiving end of it with any more understanding of IR35 than the author of this letter.

The 3rd party consultants in this case are EY.

"1. Control - we exercise a level of control over how, what or where you work.

2. Substitution - there is no ability for you to provide a substitute.

3. MoO - we are obliged to provide work and you are obliged to accept it."

I think EY have had their determination bought.

Good luck to people fighting this one at Sky.

[Manic]

Further to the abvoe, a standard letter has now been issued to All contractors. Minimal information, no understanding, standard email drop box with no assurance there is anyone on the receiving end of it with any more understanding of IR35 than the author of this letter.

The 3rd party consultants in this case are EY.

"1. Control - we exercise a level of control over how, what or where you work.

2. Substitution - there is no ability for you to provide a substitute.

3. MoO - we are obliged to provide work and you are obliged to accept it."

I think EY have had their determination bought.

Good luck to people fighting this one at Sky.

Is it possible to get sight of the Agency>Sky contract? Would be interesting to see if it mirrored the YourMate>Agency contract especially around substitution. Me thinks they have completely misunderstood point 1, and form your empirical evidence point 3 as well.

So this is not blanket policy but blanket assessment right?

[webberg]

Given what Sky have said, if an enquiry arose and you went into a meeting with HMRC saying:

1. I have the right to substitution
2. I have the right to not do the work Sky want me to do
3. I have control over what I do, when, how and to what standard

and the HMRC officer across the desk has a letter with Sky's header saying:

1. Yes but we will reject - always
2. No you do not, you have to do the work offered
3. No, we control how, what, when

I suspect that it could be a short interview.

Going into a dispute, especially if it reaches FTT and beyond, without the support of the end client is a brave shout.

[MrButton]

Sky peeps really have some decisions to make right now.

The problem is most I’ve spoken to even in the last couple of days don’t think there is a risk at all.

It’s this kind of info (about sky’s position/opinion) being broadcast publicly is expect it an easy HMRC investigation/shake down.