• 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!

New contract offer

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Kanaiya View Post
    Also the contract is between the agency and the contractor. The end client is not involved at all that's the reason the contract paper doesn't have much importance.
    It's also a very naive clientco that will simply give an outside determination with working practices that would indicate otherwise.
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by WebContractor123 View Post
      Appreciate your input LondonManc but it feels like you're painting between the lines here.

      Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?
      They absolutely will

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by WebContractor123 View Post

        Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?
        No they can’t.
        It’s their liability for getting the determination wrong.
        See You Next Tuesday

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by NeedTheSunshine View Post
          They absolutely will
          No they won’t.
          See You Next Tuesday

          Comment


            #15
            I'd check they didn't try and squeeze something into the contract to pass the buck on should their SDS be considered a sham.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
              OK. Then it comes to an investigation and a working practices check......
              HMRC: "Hey clientco, would you really accept a substitute?"
              ClientCo: "No, but we needed this guy to stay on site so we said yes. He's really good, helps out, does everything we ask, even asks when he can have holidays."
              HMRC: "Splendid."
              And OP is still in the clear and HMRC tells ClientCo to bend over. Liability is on the ClientCo.

              Originally posted by WebContractor123 View Post
              Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?
              Lance is right. They would be hanging themselves out to dry.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by Lance View Post
                No they won’t.
                I'm talking about the 2.5 years prior to April 2020. Client not liable for that.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
                  1/ And OP is still in the clear and HMRC tells ClientCo to bend over. Liability is on the ClientCo.


                  2/ Lance is right. They would be hanging themselves out to dry.
                  1/ Pre-March investigation would be interesting, given that the determination post-March is inside if client hang him out to dry.

                  2/ Amazing that a client would be so naive/not risk averse - I'd have to agree with ladymuck and consider what clauses are being inserted into the liabilities section of the contract. The agency won't be your friend in this situation.
                  The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by NeedTheSunshine View Post
                    I'm talking about the 2.5 years prior to April 2020. Client not liable for that.
                    pr1 is struggling with this. Sad little man has neg-repped me for disagreeing with him.
                    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by NeedTheSunshine View Post
                      I'm talking about the 2.5 years prior to April 2020. Client not liable for that.
                      Doesn't change anything. Client IS liable for post-April 2020, and if they throw him under the bus for before that, they throw themselves under the bus for after that.

                      So they almost certainly will not do so. Therefore, I strongly disagree with your statement that they absolutely will do it, even if I don't neg-rep you. :P

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X