Direction and control

[jamesbrown]

Agree with Contreras that it depends how a particular reviewer weighs D&C among other factors. As things stand, either an unfettered RoS or a demonstrable lack of MoO would be sufficient to win, but a "fail" is just an indication of risk and depends where the reviewer draws the line. Doing the same job as a permie implies that D&C probably exists in practice. This isn't anything new; if you have your working practices reviewed, it's going to look at why you've been contracted (i.e. as a temp resource delivering something routine for the client or as a specialist/non-routine resource), because that tells you something about the likelihood of D&C in practice.

[fool]

Hahaha. Like you 'actually delivering stuff' doesnt make you a bum on a seat contractor who should 'pay their taxes.'

Clearly called fool for no reason.

You snipped the context which was if you're actually any good you should neither require nor submit to people that would tell you how to supply your trade. Them having others like you, neither suggests they're actually the same, nor does it assure you're actually under SD&C.

Of course many are worried that next year the argument might not stand.

[Contreras]

Similar situation happened to me, this was in 2012. Contracted to deliver a self-contained project (i.e. sole software developer) but within a department where the client already had permies who could in theory have done the work. I got a contract review and made it very clear that I was working alone on a specific defined project. The review came back as potentially inside IR35 due to me effectively being hired as a temporary resource to supplement similar roles staffed by permies working on other projects.

Mitigation for this would have been a confirmation of working arrangements signed by the department boss, but that was never going to happen, and ultimately the review judged the contract inside IR35.

There was a similar case posted here recently (and the OP has since found that thread) which unfortunately came across as a rant against the particular review service. It must be remembered that an IR35 review is just an opinion and opinions vary. It's a risky move to dismiss one particular outfit because they hold a point in principle that doesn't sit well with many of us.

[mudskipper]

I'm a bit surprised by this as a PM myself it's pretty much how most of my contracts pan out with there being a PMO or some other Programme/Portfolio organisation in place and I routinely have the contracts reviewed, this has never been flagged as a concern. Being the ONLY PM at an organisation of any size is exceptionally unlikely.

I don't know who's done the review, but the implication is that it's about impossible for anyone in any role (dev, PM, support, engineering, architecture) to be outside Direction and Control therefore inside IR35.

They're either insanely risk averse or there's a bit more to the review than what you wrote. It's not impossible that you've misunderstood the review.

... or they're pre-empting the proposed IR35 changes.

[TykeMerc]

Hi,

I've had an offer of a contract as a project manager direct with a client. I've had the contract and working practices reviewed and the opinion was that it was a fail as a) the client has other PM's doing a similar role and b) I would be working on similar projects so very hard to show that I wouldn't be subject to D&C.

In my experience it is rare that an IT contractor is genuinely providing a skill that the client doesn't have. More common with the IT contractors that I know is that they are providing additional capacity of skills which the client already has. Therefore this would point to them being inside IR35.

I would be really interested to know how people who other people interpret this. Particualry interested in people who are in the scenario above where they are working with a client who also have permanent people with similar skills and or roles.

I'm a bit surprised by this as a PM myself it's pretty much how most of my contracts pan out with there being a PMO or some other Programme/Portfolio organisation in place and I routinely have the contracts reviewed, this has never been flagged as a concern. Being the ONLY PM at an organisation of any size is exceptionally unlikely.

I don't know who's done the review, but the implication is that it's about impossible for anyone in any role (dev, PM, support, engineering, architecture) to be outside Direction and Control therefore inside IR35.

They're either insanely risk averse or there's a bit more to the review than what you wrote. It's not impossible that you've misunderstood the review.

[BolshieBastard]

We aren't all uniform automatons. You likely have something these permies dont, otherwise you're a bums on seat contractor and should pay your tax.

I do ops and development. Almost everywhere I've worked has had other developers or ops guys who are permie. What makes me different from the permies I work with is I actually deliver stuff. I don't need 6 months to get up to speed and I don't spend my time convincing managment I need to use their dime to learn to use a different technology.

So basically, before I even start talking about niche technologies, the difference between me and the permies I tend to work with, is I don't need a babysitter. The clients know that. That's why they hire me. That's my defining feature. That's what every single tuliping client asks of me doing the interview. Then they give me the project, leave me alone and I deliver it.

Hahaha. Like you 'actually delivering stuff' doesnt make you a bum on a seat contractor who should 'pay their taxes.'

Clearly called fool for no reason.

[fool]

Hi,

I've had an offer of a contract as a project manager direct with a client. I've had the contract and working practices reviewed and the opinion was that it was a fail as a) the client has other PM's doing a similar role and b) I would be working on similar projects so very hard to show that I wouldn't be subject to D&C.

In my experience it is rare that an IT contractor is genuinely providing a skill that the client doesn't have. More common with the IT contractors that I know is that they are providing additional capacity of skills which the client already has. Therefore this would point to them being inside IR35.

I would be really interested to know how people who other people interpret this. Particualry interested in people who are in the scenario above where they are working with a client who also have permanent people with similar skills and or roles.

We aren't all uniform automatons. You likely have something these permies dont, otherwise you're a bums on seat contractor and should pay your tax.

I do ops and development. Almost everywhere I've worked has had other developers or ops guys who are permie. What makes me different from the permies I work with is I actually deliver stuff. I don't need 6 months to get up to speed and I don't spend my time convincing managment I need to use their dime to learn to use a different technology.

So basically, before I even start talking about niche technologies, the difference between me and the permies I tend to work with, is I don't need a babysitter. The clients know that. That's why they hire me. That's my defining feature. That's what every single tuliping client asks of me doing the interview. Then they give me the project, leave me alone and I deliver it.

[nomoregantcharts]

Hi,

I've had an offer of a contract as a project manager direct with a client. I've had the contract and working practices reviewed and the opinion was that it was a fail as a) the client has other PM's doing a similar role and b) I would be working on similar projects so very hard to show that I wouldn't be subject to D&C.

In my experience it is rare that an IT contractor is genuinely providing a skill that the client doesn't have. More common with the IT contractors that I know is that they are providing additional capacity of skills which the client already has. Therefore this would point to them being inside IR35.

I would be really interested to know how people who other people interpret this. Particualry interested in people who are in the scenario above where they are working with a client who also have permanent people with similar skills and or roles.