Public sector contracting

[DaveB]

No what they asked you for is the permission to ask your agency for personal details that they are not entitled to hold under the current contract...
Why not tell them to get stuffed?

The letter is from my agency, not from the Govt. Dept. The Govt. Dept. want my details from the agency and the agency are asking my permission to provide them.

[bobspud]

The letter is from my agency, not from the Govt. Dept. The Govt. Dept. want my details from the agency and the agency are asking my permission to provide them.

So tell the vogons to go screw...

[DaveB]

So tell the vogons to go screw...

Because under the terms of the contract schedule I am supposed to provide those details when asked on pain of contract termination. The letter is asking for the details from all those who are working through my agency via another agency or an umbrella, which I am not. I'm pretty sure they have got that bit wrong though, given the intention of the legislation they are referring to.

[Old Greg]

Because under the terms of the contract schedule I am supposed to provide those details when asked on pain of contract termination. The letter is asking for the details from all those who are working through my agency via another agency or an umbrella, which I am not. I'm pretty sure they have got that bit wrong though, given the intention of the legislation they are referring to.

Report them to the police for blackmail.

[bracken]

What's the 'new legislation?'

I've had the same e-mail and have asked them to confirm the specific 'new government legislation' to which they are referring because as far as I'm aware, there isn't any...I await their reply with anticipation...

B

[malvolio]

I've had the same e-mail and have asked them to confirm the specific 'new government legislation' to which they are referring because as far as I'm aware, there isn't any...I await their reply with anticipation...

B

It's not legislation, it's a requirement from HM Treasury arising from the Alexander Review of the taxation of contolling persons, prompted by the Ed LEster affair, that 90% of departments and 100% of agencies have misuinderstood and gold-plated. the dpeartments have to assure themselves that non-employees working for them are paying the corrrect amount of tax: that's all. It doesn't specify how.

[bracken]

It's not legislation, it's a requirement from HM Treasury...

Which is why I'm asking them to be specific as I'll be amused to see what they'll come up with!!

[Old Greg]

Quick update

Still no sign of this filtering down to the two NHS Foundation Trusts I contract with, or indeed any other NHS Trusts that people I know contract with.

[DaveB]

No further developments here in Central Govt. However among the contractors here we now have at least two different contract reviews confirming that our contracts via the sole supplier for Central Government contractors is firmly outside IR35, as are our working practices.

Those working in similar circumstances can probably be confidant that their contracts will also prove to be outside IR35 when reviewed.

[bracken]

A nice letter just dropped into my inbox

I had an e-mail letter today from non other than the Department Deputy Finance Director asking me to provide within 20 working days one of:

1) Evidence that my 'personal service' company is low risk under the HMRC BET
2) If the BET is Medium risk, evidence of a contract review, for example by the those nice impartial people from the HMRC independent IR35 help line
3) the deemed IR35 calculation and a promise (no scribbs or going back) that the tax relating to the deemed payment would be made at the end of the tax year.

The 'ignore' option would no doubt lead to a public flagellation by Danny Alexander (and contract termination) so I dutifully popped the qdos contract review in the post for their edification.

I (and I'm sure the dwindling number of people following this thread) will await their response with baited breath...

B