Contract vs Reality?

[tractor]

...

The question you need to ask with regard to any potential status indicator is this: is it a factor that discriminates between employees and contractors? If the answer is no (e.g. because it applies universally for network security or other reasons), it's neutral. I also agree with Contreras that, to be a positive indicator, it would need to be a requirement that you use your own equipment (because this would discriminate between employees and contractors).

Exactly and without exception, all my clients public sector and private insist on all employees, contractors and consultants use standard, client provided equipment. It's typically neutral as far as IR35 is concernced.

[sal]

It's a battle you can't win and would be ill advised to fight, all it will do is annoy the client.

If their corporate policy is no alien devices attach to their network then you won't get that changed and certainly not just because of IR35 which means little to nothing to the client.

WHS, basically most of the large shops will not allow you to connect device they can't manage to their network. I have heard of instances where contractors doing so behind the customer back were walked off.

This is only an example of the deterrent power of IR35, where everyone and their dog is tuliping their pants when IR35 is mentioned. Read a bit and for the love of god don't compromise a contract because of a minor IR35 pointer in the wrong direction.

[jamesbrown]

The question you need to ask with regard to any potential status indicator is this: is it a factor that discriminates between employees and contractors? If the answer is no (e.g. because it applies universally for network security or other reasons), it's neutral. I also agree with Contreras that, to be a positive indicator, it would need to be a requirement that you use your own equipment (because this would discriminate between employees and contractors).

[TykeMerc]

It's a battle you can't win and would be ill advised to fight, all it will do is annoy the client.

If their corporate policy is no alien devices attach to their network then you won't get that changed and certainly not just because of IR35 which means little to nothing to the client.

[Contreras]

I'm in the process of agreeing terms for a new contract, and it contains the now-typical "service company may provide own equipment" clause, but the client company are insisting they will provide a laptop for me...

I queried this, and was told it was to ensure "standard builds", etc and that even running a virtual image of their desktop build on my own hardware was not going to be an option. When I raised the question about IR35 indicators, I was told that because the clause exists in the contract, that was a sufficient tick in the box.

Am I wrong to get wound-up by this; and, are the client co correct in saying that as long as the clause exists in the contract, then I don't actually have to provide my own kit?

=>

There are more important things to get wound up about. The client's concern for network security (just one example) is not a pointer to you being inside IR35. For it to be a clear pointer outside, you would need to be required to provide your own equipment so unless they can be persuaded to require it, then it's not a battle worth having imho.

Otoh, if your reasons are for wanting a faster PC, larger/multiple displays, you may find things a bit more liberal once the contract is under way. I've used my own kit on about half of contracts, because it made practical sense (including WFH).

[HashRocket]

I'm in the process of agreeing terms for a new contract, and it contains the now-typical "service company may provide own equipment" clause, but the client company are insisting they will provide a laptop for me...

I queried this, and was told it was to ensure "standard builds", etc and that even running a virtual image of their desktop build on my own hardware was not going to be an option. When I raised the question about IR35 indicators, I was told that because the clause exists in the contract, that was a sufficient tick in the box.

Am I wrong to get wound-up by this; and, are the client co correct in saying that as long as the clause exists in the contract, then I don't actually have to provide my own kit?

=>