Reply to: Doing work not in the job profile

[northernladuk]

Agreed re agents and the hassle.

Nice to hear of people getting subs in. I've been close but in the end agreed with the client to leave a contract a couple of weeks earlier than planned by putting in extra work to ensure the project I was working on at the time was finished.

Anecdotally I still think that substitution rarely occurs.

And you would be correct. I would also go as far as to say most contracts would not in reality be able to pull a sub off. We have argued a lot about substitution, if it's possible, how to do it, difference between substitution and subcontract etc. Try the search for substitution as outlined in the FAQ section.

[ShandyDrinker]

The people I've known who used right of substitution are:
1. Used a contractor the client already know, or,
2. Where based off-site

Agents lie - remember they want you to sign with the least hassle on their part.

Though I have met contractors who admit not to reading their contract let alone getting it reviewed. It seems to be one contractor at every client I have who admits not to reading their contract at all.

There are others who read it and say they don't understand it but sign it anyway.

Agreed re agents and the hassle.

Nice to hear of people getting subs in. I've been close but in the end agreed with the client to leave a contract a couple of weeks earlier than planned by putting in extra work to ensure the project I was working on at the time was finished.

Anecdotally I still think that substitution rarely occurs.

[SueEllen]

So as per my comment the ultimate course of action is to terminate the contract if the client leaves little option.

Might be worth a poll at some point but I am genuinely curious to know as to how many people on here have ever successfully provided a substitute, especially when working through an agency? From speaking to a couple of friendly agents over the years they always tell me they have never known people to invoke ROS successfully.

Whenever I start a new contract and have it reviewed for IR35 I'm always surprised at hearing from agents how often people don't have their contracts properly reviewed and just sign anyway.

The people I've known who used right of substitution are:
1. Used a contractor the client already know, or,
2. Where based off-site

Agents lie - remember they want you to sign with the least hassle on their part.

Though I have met contractors who admit not to reading their contract let alone getting it reviewed. It seems to be one contractor at every client I have who admits not to reading their contract at all.

There are others who read it and say they don't understand it but sign it anyway.

[ShandyDrinker]

Well you don't have to terminate your contract but you would certainly have to re-look at your IR35 status. If they are hell bent on client direction which is a key pointer to being inside IR35 you need to ask them again if they would accept a sub and other IR35 factors and then re-asses your situation now you are inside IR35.

If the worst comes then just account for being inside IR35 and start looking elsewhere.

So as per my comment the ultimate course of action is to terminate the contract if the client leaves little option.

Might be worth a poll at some point but I am genuinely curious to know as to how many people on here have ever successfully provided a substitute, especially when working through an agency? From speaking to a couple of friendly agents over the years they always tell me they have never known people to invoke ROS successfully.

Whenever I start a new contract and have it reviewed for IR35 I'm always surprised at hearing from agents how often people don't have their contracts properly reviewed and just sign anyway.

[northernladuk]

But in this case what would you do if the client doesn't understand or is unprepared to change their stance? Would you take the ultimate step and be prepared to terminate the contract if the client insisted you undertake work not within the scope of the contract?

Well you don't have to terminate your contract but you would certainly have to re-look at your IR35 status. If they are hell bent on client direction which is a key pointer to being inside IR35 you need to ask them again if they would accept a sub and other IR35 factors and then re-asses your situation now you are inside IR35.

If the worst comes then just account for being inside IR35 and start looking elsewhere.

[ShandyDrinker]

IMO the best thing would be to let them terminate the contract if they wish to (do not terminate the contract yourself - you have done nothing wrong).

Interesting response.

As some people on here say that you shouldn't terminate a contract as it is considered bad form, I've always considered having the contract terminated in this way as bad form but I understand exactly what you are saying in that you have done nothing wrong. Situations like this are always bad as there will undoubtedly be ill feeling on the part of either the client (thinking that the contractor is not flexible enough) or the contractor (being pushed into doing something not stated in the contract).

[kingcook]

^I agree with this.



But in this case what would you do if the client doesn't understand or is unprepared to change their stance? Would you take the ultimate step and be prepared to terminate the contract if the client insisted you undertake work not within the scope of the contract?

IMO the best thing would be to let them terminate the contract if they wish to (do not terminate the contract yourself - you have done nothing wrong).

[ShandyDrinker]

Nice and I think we all have a duty to keep banging this one. For every contractor that bows to this the clients attitude changes towards contracting as a whole and starts getting harder and harder for us. I don't think larger clients will have a problem though, I mean, try getting Infosys or Cognizant to do something a little off plan. First response to the question will have a highly inflated dollar number on it so they should be used to it. If a bit of extra contract paper is all that is required for you I think the client would see that as a win.

^I agree with this.

If the client doesn't understand what you are saying to them I would take a stab and say this will be tip of the iceberg regarding attitude to contractors and I would start getting worried about IR35 and what else they are not willing to understand. I would guess it would be quite obvious in their attitude though.

But in this case what would you do if the client doesn't understand or is unprepared to change their stance? Would you take the ultimate step and be prepared to terminate the contract if the client insisted you undertake work not within the scope of the contract?

[jamesbrown]

Yes, good outcome, appropriately handled.

[northernladuk]

Thanks for all your responses.

In the event I decided to explain the situation to them in full, from a contractors perspective. They completely understood and it was not an issue whatsoever.

Another client may have been less understanding - but even so, I think that this is the right way of handling it - firm and honest.

No river rowing for me!

Untouchable1

Nice and I think we all have a duty to keep banging this one. For every contractor that bows to this the clients attitude changes towards contracting as a whole and starts getting harder and harder for us. I don't think larger clients will have a problem though, I mean, try getting Infosys or Cognizant to do something a little off plan. First response to the question will have a highly inflated dollar number on it so they should be used to it. If a bit of extra contract paper is all that is required for you I think the client would see that as a win.

If the client doesn't understand what you are saying to them I would take a stab and say this will be tip of the iceberg regarding attitude to contractors and I would start getting worried about IR35 and what else they are not willing to understand. I would guess it would be quite obvious in their attitude though.

[Untouchable1]

Thanks for all your responses.

In the event I decided to explain the situation to them in full, from a contractors perspective. They completely understood and it was not an issue whatsoever.

Another client may have been less understanding - but even so, I think that this is the right way of handling it - firm and honest.

No river rowing for me!

Untouchable1

[jamesbrown]

If this is likely to get you further work, you could also decide to complete the 2 days without billing. It's quite common to do some proof-of-concept work without fully recovering the costs and is IR35 positive, if anything. If it's clearly outside-of-the-scope of your current contract, I wouldn't try to squeeze it in, and it may not be worthwhile doing the paperwork for a couple of days work.

[Wanderer]

It feels a bit petty refusing to do it, but I want to understand if doing 2 days of non related work would be a really bad idea.

Pffft. "I will work for money" is my motto.

If they are paying me then I will do the needful so long as it's a highly skilled job - I'm not there to be a general dogs body and gopher so if they asked me to work in the canteen for a few days then I would tell them to piss off.

[GB9]

When I started reading I thought you were going to say they had asked you to pick pears. As the core skill would still be picking, I wouldn't see that as too much of an issue. However, rowing is completely different. You should really get an additional contract to cover yourself and if possible, do both pieces of work concurrently. Can you pick and row at the same time?

[northernladuk]

That's a good get out clause actually. Sorry I'm only insured to do what's in my deliverables. Complete rubbish but it's better that'll saying, no that makes me look like a permy and ill end up paying more tax

And they will know it is complete rubbish and you will look like an idiot. You don't have to say that last line, you negotiate yourself in to a win win position and get another set of deliverables and run them concurrently.