Agreeing to Client Policies

[northernladuk]

Unable to type?

FTFY... Big difference between not being able to spell and keyboard typos..

[b0redom]

I have signed the "eqaul ops" policy yet I'm .....

Unable to spell?

[Sockpuppet]

Thanks for the replies... None of these replies are unexpected, that is why I asked to see what others thought. The Qdos notes say these polices are a "little controlling", they particularly highlighted the dress policy and the smoking policy. However I of course understand why the client would want to cover these and was a little concerned re going back to the client on these.

I think I will cover it by a letter confirming my companies policy is standard business attire at clients sites and confirm the smoking policy, would be no more than a ban on smoking at the client's work place, which of course we would comply with on the clients site.

The other question I have is that the contract is between my company and the agent's company. However this deed ("Declaration of Conformity) is between the 1) investiment bank plc and 2) me individually named as the "Contractor". I am thinking this deed, should be between my company and the investiment bank and then refer to the consultant. Any comments ?

BTW I would prefer to turn down the work rather than sign a contract that puts me inside the IR35 regulations.

Depends.

I have signed a "agreement to use ClientCo computer equipment" yet I use my own laptop and e-mail.

I have signed a "dress code" which states business suit and tie yet I wear PPE mostly - safety shoes, flame resistant clothing, hard hat.

I have signed the "eqaul ops" policy yet I'm .....

Anyway the point is often contracts are generic and don't cover everyone who uses them. My client co is a major high street fashion retailer I work in logistics. I'm very different from the finance peeps they place so their standard contract works for them but not so well for me.


However I'm not scared by IR35 and even less about losing.

[northernladuk]

BTW I would prefer to turn down the work rather than sign a contract that puts me inside the IR35 regulations.

I think this is a bit stupid really for a number of reasosn....

1. Your contract might be all fancy and out of IR35 but it means squat if your working practices put you inside. I would risk saying that a large number of us are under the illusions we are safe because of our contract and are fulfilling hidden permie roles quite nicely. Granted if it went further we could argue them but that is because the rules are so dam grey.

2. The possibility of investigation is so slim and you just have to pay back what you didn't declare it seems, or so another thread on the issue says.

3. Most contracts I believe have working practices putting you in the IR35 firing line so be prepared to turn down quite a few

4. You can afford to turn down a couple of contracts until a nice IR35 friendly one comes up in the current climate? You are doing better than I am then.

The other question I have is that the contract is between my company and the agent's company. However this deed ("Declaration of Conformity) is between the 1) investiment bank plc and 2) me individually named as the "Contractor". I am thinking this deed, should be between my company and the investiment bank and then refer to the consultant. Any comments ?

I was under the impression your name must not appear anywhere else this is going to cause problems with any substitution you were hoping to do. I am sure if a large outsourcer takes on a contract they do not name all their guys they are putting on to the account. Could be wrong but try and keep any names off it if at all possible.

[centurian]

BTW I would prefer to turn down the work rather than sign a contract that puts me inside the IR35 regulations.

Fair enough choice. But do consider my option 4 above as well. Many contractors just won't do it out of principle - paying all that NI.

But if the rate is high enough - you would be better off than waiting 1-2 months for another role that is at a lower rate, yet more IR35 compliant.

Nothing wrong with taking IR35-stuffed gigs IMO - just that you have to adjust the daily rate to work out what you are really on in comparison to other roles.

[centurian]

So a client wants a say over what people do and wear while on their premises, and you're more worried about IR35 than complying with the client's HR bound wishes? Good luck with that.

I'm sure it's all those successful cases the goverment has won with IR35 that makes you so cautious and willing to lose work over it.

While you may be correct, we shouldn't be complacent.

The problem is this is that you then knowingly got involved in working practices which you knew might place you inside IR35 - and still did it anyway. That gives HMRC ammunition for applying a 100% penalty in addition to everything else.


There are 4 basic choices

1. Don't take the gig and hope to find another one with better working practices
2. Take it and hope to argue the case if you are investigated
3. Attempt to get the working practices changed - fat chance, but still an option.
4. Take it and go inside IR35.

People have to pick the choice that best fits their risk/reward preference.

I think the main problem is that people warp option 2 to mean. "Take it, because I'm going to re-interpret IR35 to mean what I want it to mean".

Any issue with the contract/working practices is an issue - it's just a case of balancing it against everything else to work out your best option. You can't simply declare it not to be an issue and qed - the problem disappears.

Good luck

[greyhen]

Thanks for the replies... None of these replies are unexpected, that is why I asked to see what others thought. The Qdos notes say these polices are a "little controlling", they particularly highlighted the dress policy and the smoking policy. However I of course understand why the client would want to cover these and was a little concerned re going back to the client on these.

I think I will cover it by a letter confirming my companies policy is standard business attire at clients sites and confirm the smoking policy, would be no more than a ban on smoking at the client's work place, which of course we would comply with on the clients site.

The other question I have is that the contract is between my company and the agent's company. However this deed ("Declaration of Conformity) is between the 1) investiment bank plc and 2) me individually named as the "Contractor". I am thinking this deed, should be between my company and the investiment bank and then refer to the consultant. Any comments ?

BTW I would prefer to turn down the work rather than sign a contract that puts me inside the IR35 regulations.

[pmeswani]

So a client wants a say over what people do and wear while on their premises, and you're more worried about IR35 than complying with the client's HR bound wishes? Good luck with that.

I'm sure it's all those successful cases the goverment has won with IR35 that makes you so cautious and willing to lose work over it.

Unless the OP is working on the trading floor or customer facing (Ok, I don't know much about IB and won't pretend to know), the client may have a direct say on dress code. They may insist on asking the contractor to wear client co branded clothing. If they do, the OP should consider the options.

[Wanderer]

Oh and welcome to the forum!

[Wanderer]

However I believe the following are too controlling:
"standards of dress"
"equal opportunities policy"
"no smoking policy"

Have a meeting of the directors of your company and make up your own company dress code, "business formal at all times" and hey, that pretty much co-incides with the client's dress code. Write up the minutes of the meeting recording the resolution and you're done. That way it was your company which dictated the dress code, not the client. Unless the dress code is really draconian (ie, you must wear the client's clothing range while onsite, or dress up in drag because the boss is a queen and a bit pervy), then it's pretty irrelevant.

The other two are largely dictated by legal requirements, I wouldn't lose any sleep over them. Trying to have them struck out will just cause you a load of grief for nothing.

[PAH]

So a client wants a say over what people do and wear while on their premises, and you're more worried about IR35 than complying with the client's HR bound wishes? Good luck with that.

I'm sure it's all those successful cases the goverment has won with IR35 that makes you so cautious and willing to lose work over it.

[pmeswani]

I have had my contract reviewed by Qdos and they pointed out I should avoid Client Policies that are not specific to the service I am providing, as this can indicate control.

There is a deed to be signed called "declaration of conformity". This is for the client who is an investment bank. It includes section on confidentiality, intellectual property that I am happy with. But then there is a section of client "Policies". Note the deed is made out to me rather than my company so I am going to ask for this to be changed.

These are the policies I feel happy that I can accept as they obviously apply to the service, espically when I am on site
Code for dealing in Client group securities
Data protection act
Emergency, health safety policy
Security rules

However I believe the following are too controlling:
"standards of dress"
"equal opportunities policy"
"no smoking policy"

I am going to ask for the last 3 to be removed. Have others done similar with their contracts ?

I don't think they are too controlling.

Are you saying that you are happy to walk into a client site with torn jeans and a t-shirt, where everyone else is in formal business wear? If the environment requires you to wear a certain standard of dress code, then you should abide by that requirement.

Regarding the Equal Opps policy, even though it is a permie style policy, it is there to protect you and the client. If someone at client co consistently breaches the Equal Opps policy (whether it involves you directly or not), are you saying that you are going to turn a blind eye and ignore it? Remember, the person who is doing it is bound by the policy. Should they be exempt?

Regarding the No Smoking Policy... Are you serious? If the company has a no smoking policy, then it applies to everyone. Contractors, Permie and Visitors. You are not exempt from the policy! If the no-smoking policy says you can't smoke inside the building, are you saying that you are going to ignore it and smoke inside the building? (Yes I know it is illegal to smoke inside the workplace!). I am not saying this from a non-smoker point of view, just a common sense point of view.

Depending on the role you are doing, the only issue I have is with the Dress Code. I can see the Dress Code as being Client Co labelled clothing / standard clothing. If that is the case, it could be tipped as an IR35 pointer.

[greyhen]

I have had my contract reviewed by Qdos and they pointed out I should avoid Client Policies that are not specific to the service I am providing, as this can indicate control.

There is a deed to be signed called "declaration of conformity". This is for the client who is an investment bank. It includes section on confidentiality, intellectual property that I am happy with. But then there is a section of client "Policies". Note the deed is made out to me rather than my company so I am going to ask for this to be changed.

These are the policies I feel happy that I can accept as they obviously apply to the service, espically when I am on site
Code for dealing in Client group securities
Data protection act
Emergency, health safety policy
Security rules

However I believe the following are too controlling:
"standards of dress"
"equal opportunities policy"
"no smoking policy"

I am going to ask for the last 3 to be removed. Have others done similar with their contracts ?