Interesting client/agency contradiction

[Snooky]

My client is a major international bank, let's call it BigBank. MyCo is engaged via their in-house sourcing partner, I'll call them ResourceCo.

BigBank sent out a document to all managers explaining how they should go through the SDS for their staff using CEST and some of the details are very interesting when juxtaposed with the ResourceCo contract. Bear in mind this contract has just been revised to fit in with the post-April legislation.

Response below are paraphrased to protect the guilty


CEST question:
Has the worker ever sent a substitute to do the work? Do you have the right to reject a substitute?

BigBank guidance doc:
No, definitely no substitutes

ResourceCo contract:
Yes, the contractor can provide a substitute




CEST question:
If your organisation was not happy with the work, would the worker have to put it right?

BigBank guidance doc:
They certainly wouldn't have to do it unpaid (i.e. answers "Yes, unpaid and they would have extra costs that your organization would not pay for" and "Yes, unpaid but their only cost would be losing the opportunity to do other work" don't apply)

ResourceCo contract:
Yes they would, at their own cost and in their own time



I'm leaving in a few weeks anyway, so it really doesn't affect me, but I find it depressingly unsurprising that the resourcing company, who should know exactly what the client expects from contract staff, blindly ignores that and puts what it thinks a contractor wants to see in their contract, which has been altered for use post-April. Is it any wonder some contractors think they're OK for IR35 when this kind of garbage is still going on even with all the palaver about the new off-payroll rules?

Mumble, grumble, hmmmph

[redman123]

Testing

[GhostofTarbera]

My client is a major international bank, let's call it BigBank. MyCo is engaged via their in-house sourcing partner, I'll call them ResourceCo.

BigBank sent out a document to all managers explaining how they should go through the SDS for their staff using CEST and some of the details are very interesting when juxtaposed with the ResourceCo contract. Bear in mind this contract has just been revised to fit in with the post-April legislation.

Response below are paraphrased to protect the guilty


CEST question:
Has the worker ever sent a substitute to do the work? Do you have the right to reject a substitute?

BigBank guidance doc:
No, definitely no substitutes

ResourceCo contract:
Yes, the contractor can provide a substitute




CEST question:
If your organisation was not happy with the work, would the worker have to put it right?

BigBank guidance doc:
They certainly wouldn't have to do it unpaid (i.e. answers "Yes, unpaid and they would have extra costs that your organization would not pay for" and "Yes, unpaid but their only cost would be losing the opportunity to do other work" don't apply)

ResourceCo contract:
Yes they would, at their own cost and in their own time



I'm leaving in a few weeks anyway, so it really doesn't affect me, but I find it depressingly unsurprising that the resourcing company, who should know exactly what the client expects from contract staff, blindly ignores that and puts what it thinks a contractor wants to see in their contract, which has been altered for use post-April. Is it any wonder some contractors think they're OK for IR35 when this kind of garbage is still going on even with all the palaver about the new off-payroll rules?

Mumble, grumble, hmmmph

No better anywhere else - expect a year on the bench


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[northernladuk]

So the agent is just regurgitating what they know about making a contract outside with no knowledge or regard what the client wants.
This is not news. It's this disconnect that's caused the reasons for investigations and change to legislation. I'll bet this disconnect is happening in a vast majority of client/agent contracts.

[northernladuk]

If an agency can get it so wrong imagine how wrong a contractor's CEST can be...

[Lockhouse]

I had a similar thing - the client answers had contradicted the contract (and I'm direct) and issued a caught SDS. It wasn't my client point of contact that did this, it was the client HR and a senior manager I'd only spoken to in passing.

I pointed it out to the client reasonably forcibly that they were ignoring the contract which more accurately reflected the relationship - and how would they react if their own clients ignored clauses in their own contracts? I also rebutted the SDS point by point.

Still not heard anything back. Expecting to be walked off site before 6th April as have already refused to work inside.

[ladymuck]

I had a similar thing - the client answers had contradicted the contract (and I'm direct) and issued a caught SDS. It wasn't my client point of contact that did this, it was the client HR and a senior manager I'd only spoken to in passing.

I pointed it out to the client reasonably forcibly that they were ignoring the contract which more accurately reflected the relationship - and how would they react if their own clients ignored clauses in their own contracts? I also rebutted the SDS point by point.

Still not heard anything back. Expecting to be walked off site before 6th April as have already refused to work inside.

It may not help you in the short term but maybe the client will take a closer look at the contracts their agencies are issuing and reconsider their approach.

[northernladuk]

It may not help you in the short term but maybe the client will take a closer look at the contracts their agencies are issuing and reconsider their approach.

He said he's direct.

[johnnyk]

So the agent is just regurgitating what they know about making a contract outside with no knowledge or regard what the client wants.
This is not news. It's this disconnect that's caused the reasons for investigations and change to legislation. I'll bet this disconnect is happening in a vast majority of client/agent contracts.

What's the risk for a contractor, post 6th Apr, of ending up being in a contract with this kind of discrepancies?

I mean

1) the contract between client and agency clearly says "inside"
2) the contract between the agency and the contractor says "outside" (same as the opening on whatever website)
3) the contractor accept the job and signs the "outside" agency's contract
4) the contractor does not know anything about the client <-> agency contract

An investigation comes: what would happen next?

[Highland]

What's the risk for a contractor, post 6th Apr, of ending up being in a contract with this kind of discrepancies?

I mean

1) the contract between client and agency clearly says "inside"
2) the contract between the agency and the contractor says "outside" (same as the opening on whatever website)
3) the contractor accept the job and signs the "outside" agency's contract
4) the contractor does not know anything about the client <-> agency contract

An investigation comes: what would happen next?

If the client <-> agency contract clearly says inside then the client will have issued an inside SDS so there will be no potential for inside/outside confusion based upon misaligned contracts.

If they were spectacularly stupid enough (client) to issue an outside SDS when the terms of the client <-> agency contract were clearly inside then the issue sits with the client.