I've had a look at this and shared it with some colleagues last week. I like the concept and it builds on what I tell clients - engaging on an outside basis will make is easier for you to attract top contractors so I'd like to see this time of information disseminated (even with the potential accuracy flaws discussed elsewhere) I wanted to provide some feedback - appreciate it can feel like criticism and please know that's not my intent. It's a good idea but I think it needs work to be really useful, which I'd really like to see happen.
I think the summary page with red/amber/green could be misleading.
I've yet to see a client that are doing 'blanket inside IR35' so I'd remove that wording and stick with PAYE/Brolly only. Whilst I get the point that this could be pedantry, it's incredibly difficult talking to clients and contractors who don't understand the topic massively and when there is confusing language all over the place it makes it harder, where we are able to we should make things clearer (imho)
Equally instead of 'Blanket assessments with some exceptions' - I'd make this 'most roles are only suitable for inside/PAYE/brolly with some exceptions'.
The category 'Individuals assessed fairly' I think includes too many scenarios - The ideal would this would be 'individual assessments completed using X' .
I would actually do 2 sections - client assessing using X and then likely outcome - most roles PAYE, most roles outside or some in and some out
Then a seperate marker for 'policy approach, no PSC's'
I think that approach would give you more information more easily and be more accurate.
I know a client who is using Qdos but having pre-assessed all roles will fall inside IR35 - therefore they are assessing fairly but still inside. I know another client who is using a policy approach as they engaged with Qdos, realised they're all inside so decided not to bother with individual assessments. Both clients will have the same outcome for the same reasons but would look significantly different.
Appreciate the disclaimer on the jobs page but it really worries me. I can see red flags in every advert I clicked - again not something you can control but it is concerning that roles are being advertised incorrectly.
I think the summary page with red/amber/green could be misleading.
I've yet to see a client that are doing 'blanket inside IR35' so I'd remove that wording and stick with PAYE/Brolly only. Whilst I get the point that this could be pedantry, it's incredibly difficult talking to clients and contractors who don't understand the topic massively and when there is confusing language all over the place it makes it harder, where we are able to we should make things clearer (imho)
Equally instead of 'Blanket assessments with some exceptions' - I'd make this 'most roles are only suitable for inside/PAYE/brolly with some exceptions'.
The category 'Individuals assessed fairly' I think includes too many scenarios - The ideal would this would be 'individual assessments completed using X' .
I would actually do 2 sections - client assessing using X and then likely outcome - most roles PAYE, most roles outside or some in and some out
Then a seperate marker for 'policy approach, no PSC's'
I think that approach would give you more information more easily and be more accurate.
I know a client who is using Qdos but having pre-assessed all roles will fall inside IR35 - therefore they are assessing fairly but still inside. I know another client who is using a policy approach as they engaged with Qdos, realised they're all inside so decided not to bother with individual assessments. Both clients will have the same outcome for the same reasons but would look significantly different.
Appreciate the disclaimer on the jobs page but it really worries me. I can see red flags in every advert I clicked - again not something you can control but it is concerning that roles are being advertised incorrectly.
Comment