And on the basis of this...
I joined Ipse.
Thanks for the nudge.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Woes Around Opt-Out and Payment
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Woes Around Opt-Out and Payment"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by eek View PostNo its highly relevant.
If opted out the clause saying that the agency only needs to pay him if the agency is paid would be valid.
If opted in that clause is invalid and the agency is obliged to pay for all signed timesheets.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View Postso am I right in saying that the OPs opt-in/out status is irrelevant to payment?
If opted out the clause saying that the agency only needs to pay him if the agency is paid would be valid.
If opted in that clause is invalid and the agency is obliged to pay for all signed timesheets.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by missinggreenfields View PostThe main other benefit of remaining inside is that the timescale to change agency / bypass the agency completely is typically more generous than a contract would give you.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View PostMaybe I'm being a bit thick, but isn't the point of the opt-out so that agencies don't have to pay you if you don't have a signed time sheet?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lance View PostMaybe I'm being a bit thick, but isn't the point of the opt-out so that agencies don't have to pay you if you don't have a signed time sheet?
As I understand it, if the OP has a signed time sheet for the work period then the in/out status is irrelevant and the agency owes the money.
Certainly the contract I have at the moment has no 'if client no pay, we no pay you' clause. Maybe that's unusual though.
The only exception being expenses as the agency will not pay those until they've received payment.
Agencies, being ever helpful and supportive, saw it as a way to de-risk their payment schedule, enforce long-running handcuff clauses to protect their income and minimise the effort they would need to find, vet and approve candidates by getting the contractors to put themselves outside the scope of the regulations and so not have to comply with its various demands. Hence the word "abuse".
The Opt Out has a real purpose, but it's nothing to do with agencies.
Leave a comment:
-
Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but isn't the point of the opt-out so that agencies don't have to pay you if you don't have a signed time sheet?
As I understand it, if the OP has a signed time sheet for the work period then the in/out status is irrelevant and the agency owes the money.
Certainly the contract I have at the moment has no 'if client no pay, we no pay you' clause. Maybe that's unusual though.
The only exception being expenses as the agency will not pay those until they've received payment.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostNot really. That was about Direction, the fact that the agency cocked up the Opt Out, meaning he was opted in anyway, is not that relevant. What we want to prove is the precise point in the process of hiring that the opt out is valid.
In other words, we need a case where the agency is denying something on the basis that the contractor is opted out when he (and we) believe he isn't.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostWhich is why I think it would actually be a very hard battle to actual fight. You would need to find a counter party willing and able to fight whilst their legal insurance screams pay the amount owed its far less than the £00,000s fighting this will cost...
As others have said IPSe need to pick their battles carefully. I think were they to fight this they would continually win at the first huddle until and unless agencies felt they had to have a definitive answer. And I reckon they like the ambiguity.
There was some agent on here last year ranting how the opt-out done the agency's way was valid when his case had nothing to do with it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostWhich is why I think it would actually be a very hard battle to actual fight. You would need to find a counter party willing and able to fight whilst their legal insurance screams pay the amount owed its far less than the £00,000s fighting this will cost...
As others have said IPSe need to pick their battles carefully. I think were they to fight this they would continually win at the first huddle until and unless agencies felt they had to have a definitive answer. And I reckon they like the ambiguity.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by missinggreenfields View PostDid a suitable victim not step up in BIS v CNL?
In other words, we need a case where the agency is denying something on the basis that the contractor is opted out when he (and we) believe he isn't.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostThe only way to be absolutely certain is to send an Opt Out letter with the application for the role, before anything else has happened (assuming you want to opt out of course) and then totally ignoring anything else you may be sent after that point. Any other option almost certainly means you not opted out since you can't opt in - you are in by default. And as I said earlier, you have to be careful about what's in the contract. If you agree to the agency pay-when-paid clause then it will apply regardless unless it is stated to be dependent on your status re the opt out.
And as young Pondlife says, until it goes to court it will never be fixed. Which is why I keep asking for a suitable vict... hero to step up.
The agencies only push for the opt out because it saves them time, money and risk incidentally, and I have it on good authority that a major one did an audit on their contracts a while back and found virtually all of them were handled wrongly
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: