Most contracts being advertised as Outside IR35 - Azure/Cloud Consultant

[dsc]

At the moment I'd say most - maybe 60% are going with flex on resource - risking losing contractors or gambling on not losing them, 30% are flexing on working arrangements, this tends to be quite sector dependent - some sectors all clients are flexing on this, some none are, and 1 in 10 is increasing rates but no one by more than 5%. I think rates will increase but there's a reluctance to attribute it to this directly.

That's actually way better than I assumed, I thought it would be closer to 90/10 split. Do you know what the idea behind rate increases is? Just trying to retain the best talent on B2B arrangements? I thought every contractor would be super happy with a proper B2B relationship even on the same rate.

[ComplianceLady]

From your experience, roughly, what's the percentage spread across all three flex options? I kind of have a feeling not a lot of companies go for option no 3, which to me is the simplest (also the one which I think a lot of companies have a problem with for some reason).

At the moment I'd say most - maybe 60% are going with flex on resource - risking losing contractors or gambling on not losing them, 30% are flexing on working arrangements, this tends to be quite sector dependent - some sectors all clients are flexing on this, some none are, and 1 in 10 is increasing rates but no one by more than 5%. I think rates will increase but there's a reluctance to attribute it to this directly.

[dsc]

We are advising clients you have to flex on either: 1. resource - get less resource, less skill etc. 2. Cost - pay consultancy, increase rates etc. or 3. Working arrangements - engage in a truly B2B manner and you can get the same resource at the same cost.

From your experience, roughly, what's the percentage spread across all three flex options? I kind of have a feeling not a lot of companies go for option no 3, which to me is the simplest (also the one which I think a lot of companies have a problem with for some reason).

[JohntheBike]

Whilst I agree with the principal that a client/agency should not be able to simply pass on any risk via a clause in the contract, what specific rights are being signed away, given this is a business to business contract?

clearly I can't see the details of the contract. The point I'm making is that if there are statutory regulations in place to cover any agreement, then these can't be signed away. So, e.g. if there is an existing contract between two parties, then if one party is allowed to continue after that contract expires without a new contract, then contract statute dictates that the previous contract is still in force.

[rockinghorse]

ERP / Business Central or CRM / CE / Powerapps?

all of the above

[ComplianceLady]

With regard to the 'Okay fine it's outside IR35' scenario. My experience is many roles are inside IR35 because the client is unwilling to flex on certain things. Where the skill set is niche the desire to flex will be higher and thus the role status will change because the client changes the role. We are advising clients you have to flex on either: 1. resource - get less resource, less skill etc. 2. Cost - pay consultancy, increase rates etc. or 3. Working arrangements - engage in a truly B2B manner and you can get the same resource at the same cost.

With regard to the contract issue - you can indemnify another party against their statutory liability but you cannot take on the liability directly so it would work where agency is found liable, pays statutory liability and invoices PSC, depending on the structure of the clause they may have to demonstrate loss, cause or nothing at all. If the PSC doesn't exist when the liability arises they have no recourse, similarly if there are no assets. These clauses are, in my view, not worth inclusion. If an agency is genuinely concerned they should get insurance.

[Paralytic]

you cannot sign away any of your statutory rights.

Whilst I agree with the principal that a client/agency should not be able to simply pass on any risk via a clause in the contract, what specific rights are being signed away, given this is a business to business contract?

[JohntheBike]

Chances of me signing a contract with such a clause are pretty slim indeed.

you cannot sign away any of your statutory rights.

[pscont]

I've seen contracts (from two different agencies) that included "IR35 Indemnity" clause. By signing the contract you agree to protect the end-client and agency from any employment/IR35 related tax liability.

People have been telling me that this is not enforceable as end-client cannot transfer liability to another party, but who knows. I would prefer not to have such clause in the first place.

Chances of me signing a contract with such a clause are pretty slim indeed.

[JamesBrown11]

what do you mean by the client "hitting the agent" and "in turn hitting you"?

If the changes go ahead then at least one thing is crystal clear, the onus is on the client. I don't see how they can hit you, so to speak, in any way following April 1st. This sounds like speculation.

I've seen contracts (from two different agencies) that included "IR35 Indemnity" clause. By signing the contract you agree to protect the end-client and agency from any employment/IR35 related tax liability.

People have been telling me that this is not enforceable as end-client cannot transfer liability to another party, but who knows. I would prefer not to have such clause in the first place.