Client lied on CEST to get 'Inside' determination

[HappyGoLucky]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?

[ladymuck]

It sounds like reasonable care may not have been taken.

Ask them what their appeals process is.

[eek]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?

It is their viewpoint and as of April it's their viewpoint that counts.

You can appeal but I wouldn't expect things to be any different - so either accept it or leave

[Patrick@Intouch]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?

Firstly, the flaws of CEST are well documented and even HMRC will not stand by the results generated.

Legislation will require anyone making determinations to exercise reasonable care when doing so and to have answered questions honestly.

If the answers to those questions are based on opinion then you may struggle to convince them to change but if they are based in fact then you should challenge their assessment, providing them with evidence to the contrary.

[northernladuk]

It sounds like reasonable care may not have been taken.

Ask them what their appeals process is.

I'm betting its more of a case of he doesn't like it so they lied/it's illegal.

Wale will have to waitnfor the drip feed of information and we will see.

[webberg]

You can instigate the dispute process that your client is OBLIGED to have.

It may be that they have already pre determined that and will maintain their "inside" stance.

Para 4:14 of the recent "response" document does point to what you can do if you still believe that you are "outside".

Details are thin but the impression given is that you can dispute the designation via your SATR.

Whilst I can foresee a lot of technical issues there and some contractual problems and a timing matter, it will give you a route to challenge which may have the advantage of not damaging commercial relationships with your client.

[NotAllThere]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?

Are you sure it's deliberate and not simply due to mistakes/misunderstanding? Chucking around accusations of dishonesty will certainly resolve the issue - your contract will be immediately terminated.

[ChimpMaster]

Are you sure it's deliberate and not simply due to mistakes/misunderstanding? Chucking around accusations of dishonesty will certainly resolve the issue - your contract will be immediately terminated.

which ironically means you were outside IR35.

[northernladuk]

Are you sure it's deliberate and not simply due to mistakes/misunderstanding? Chucking around accusations of dishonesty will certainly resolve the issue - your contract will be immediately terminated.

This is what my money on. Something simple as they had substitute in their old contracts, they 'think' they were/are able to substitute but the CEST says not. This isn't a lie. It's the client telling them it's how they want the engagement to be, not what it was. Proper diligence has been applied and it's not a lie/illegal. The fact the OP hasn't posted any detail further raises my suspicions.

But.. we won't find out until we wring it out of the OP I guess.

[Paralytic]

OP, which question did they lie and and can you prove it?