Reply to: Client Company mobile phone and objectives

[TheFaQQer]

Is there case law to support this theory because I just dont see it?

You want to be seen as being different to the employees. I can understand pc's on a secure network being provided to all is ok but, a phone?

I think the idea is being stretched a bit too far there.

I don't know if there is case law specifically about whether using the client's equipment is a clear indicator of employment.

However, I believe that if the client treats you in the same way as they treat their employees, but not the same way that they treat other contractors, that would be indicative that they saw you as an employee.

And given that indicator, the ability for HMRC to build their case proving the three tenets of IR35 would be easier.

[BolshieBastard]

In this case, though, they aren't expecting the OP to provide his own equipment - they are providing it for him. If they provide a phone for everyone, then it's not an indicator. If they provide one for the OP (and all other permies) but not for other contractors, then it could be an indicator of the OP being an employee.

If everyone is treated the same, then you cannot use it as an indicator one way or the other. If the question was "they want me to use their laptop rather than my own", it would not be an indicator of being inside IR35 if they made everyone do it. However, if they allowed some contractors to use their own equipment but not others, then it could be an indicator that the client views you as being part of the workforce rather than an independent contractor who is not.

Is there case law to support this theory because I just dont see it?

You want to be seen as being different to the employees. I can understand pc's on a secure network being provided to all is ok but, a phone?

I think the idea is being stretched a bit too far there.

[sociopath]

Reminds me of a time years ago when I was a permie and had to give contractors working for me in my team yearly performance reviews and set targets etc.

It sounds like the company considers you as an agency employee and will do so throughout the contract. Keep your working practices in check.

If they haven't provided you with a template to complete you could always produce a deliverables list with key milestones for the project works you are responsible for delivering on yourco headed format.

[Contreras]

Objectives should be as per the contract, or a schedule under the contract.

If there isn't one, or it doesn't list any objectives, a.k.a. 'deliverables', then there's your problem.

[SueEllen]

The objectives thing is a little troubling but the phone thing isn't. It's acceptable for a company to provide specialist IT equipment such as a phone with a link to the internal email server. Maybe it's like that?

As for objectives, maybe just list measurable tasks you've asked to do as part of your contract project?

While I agree with you on the phone, I disagree with you on the "objectives". Contractors are there to deliver what they agreed in the contract, so finding out a contractor's objectives is peculiar and indicates they think he is a permie.

[PerfectStorm]

The objectives thing is a little troubling but the phone thing isn't. It's acceptable for a company to provide specialist IT equipment such as a phone with a link to the internal email server. Maybe it's like that?

As for objectives, maybe just list measurable tasks you've asked to do as part of your contract project?

[Pondlife]

I'm no legal expert but I would regard "objectives", "performance review" and all similar concepts as having nothing to do with contractors. You are not an employee, therefore you don't have objectives, in that sense. And I would certainly not submit to a performance review, or tolerate any talk of it.

Saying the above is easy. Approaching it with tact and diplomacy is a bit more tricky. If things become too awkward, I would have a quiet word with the agent.

Replace the word objectives with deliverables and performance with vendor - Then it's acceptable, however I'd guess the client doesn't have a contractor is not permie mindset so you can guarantee this is the tip of the IR35 iceberg.

[unixman]

I'm no legal expert but I would regard "objectives", "performance review" and all similar concepts as having nothing to do with contractors. You are not an employee, therefore you don't have objectives, in that sense. And I would certainly not submit to a performance review, or tolerate any talk of it.

Saying the above is easy. Approaching it with tact and diplomacy is a bit more tricky. If things become too awkward, I would have a quiet word with the agent.

[Sausage Surprise]

"Objectives" are for permies...that's the whole point of being a contractor

[TheFaQQer]

That makes a bit more sense than your first post.

When I said "you" in the original post, I was referencing the person who asked the question, rather than using "you" to represent the general contracting population.

It says the same thing, but I'm glad that you can understand it now.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

In this case, though, they aren't expecting the OP to provide his own equipment - they are providing it for him. If they provide a phone for everyone, then it's not an indicator. If they provide one for the OP (and all other permies) but not for other contractors, then it could be an indicator of the OP being an employee.

If everyone is treated the same, then you cannot use it as an indicator one way or the other. If the question was "they want me to use their laptop rather than my own", it would not be an indicator of being inside IR35 if they made everyone do it. However, if they allowed some contractors to use their own equipment but not others, then it could be an indicator that the client views you as being part of the workforce rather than an independent contractor who is not.

That makes a bit more sense than your first post.

[Batcher]

I'll rephrase:



If they treat everyone the same, then it's not a differentiator. In this case, they are giving the OP a phone. If they did that for all employees but not for contractors, then it would be an indicator that they consider the OP to be an employee since they are treating them in teh same way as they treat employees, but differently from how they view contractors.

OK, got you now but had to reread it a few times as it still was clear as mud

What you mean is all employees plus the OP get one but all other contractors have to use their own then he would be seen as the same as an employee.

[TheFaQQer]

Huh? That sounds backwards to me. Surely being treated the same as all other employees would mean they view you as an employee, not being treated differently?

Expecting contractors to provide their own equipment is surely a positive thing?

In this case, though, they aren't expecting the OP to provide his own equipment - they are providing it for him. If they provide a phone for everyone, then it's not an indicator. If they provide one for the OP (and all other permies) but not for other contractors, then it could be an indicator of the OP being an employee.

If everyone is treated the same, then you cannot use it as an indicator one way or the other. If the question was "they want me to use their laptop rather than my own", it would not be an indicator of being inside IR35 if they made everyone do it. However, if they allowed some contractors to use their own equipment but not others, then it could be an indicator that the client views you as being part of the workforce rather than an independent contractor who is not.

[TheFaQQer]

Are you sure that's correct? If you are providing your own equipment surely it points to you being non-employee?

I'll rephrase:

If they would provide staff with one but expect contractors to have their own, then it could be an indicator that [since they are providing you with a phone in the same way that they would provide an employee with one] they view you as an employee.

If they treat everyone the same, then it's not a differentiator. In this case, they are giving the OP a phone. If they did that for all employees but not for contractors, then it would be an indicator that they consider the OP to be an employee since they are treating them in teh same way as they treat employees, but differently from how they view contractors.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

If they would provide a phone for being on-call to all contractors and staff, then it's not a differentiator so cannot impact your IR35 status. If they would provide staff with one but expect contractors to have their own, then it could be an indicator that they view you as an employee.

Huh? That sounds backwards to me. Surely being treated the same as all other employees would mean they view you as an employee, not being treated differently?

Expecting contractors to provide their own equipment is surely a positive thing?