Reply to: Working Practices pass, but contract is a fail

[psychocandy]

The old "well every contractor signs it and you're the first one whos ever had an issue" argument.

Same old every time....

[TykeMerc]

Exactly and to be fair I believe he had no idea what he was talking about, either that or he was spinning it like a politician.

You can safely assume both.

As we've all seen agents have no clue, they just have processes to follow and odds are they get reduced commissions if people won't sign the ripoff terms, absurd declarations and comedy contracts.
Not like as a group they're famous for truthfulness.

[The Spartan]

Hmmm - so you sign that and blow your right of substitution because everyone has to be a director or owns more than 5% of your company.

Exactly and to be fair I believe he had no idea what he was talking about, either that or he was spinning it like a politician.

[The Spartan]

And (apart from walking away from a contract*), this is your problem how?

(*In the same position I'd do exactly the same as you btw.)

I gave them an alternative declaration which they're going to allow me to sign, but I find their tactics very heavy handed and downright despicable. I just told the client about their behavior and they were less than impressed, I'm guessing they just like being told by me that I am not going to put up with their tulipe.

Even the QDOS review flagged the declaration as being absolute junk, but no their employment lawyers know better. Hmmm if it's on the gov.uk site in black and white how is it open to that type of interpretation

[cojak]

Just had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:

And (apart from walking away from a contract*), this is your problem how?

(*In the same position I'd do exactly the same as you btw.)

[TheFaQQer]

Just had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:

In relation to the agency legislation (Chapter 7, Part 2 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003) (also
known as the Onshore Intermediary legislation), on behalf of <The Company> I declare:
That all individual(s) supplied by <The Company> and <ROA> (known as PSC) is/are
owners/directors and shareholders of the company (such shareholding is more than 5%);
That the PSC will provide such evidence as required by <The Recruitment Company> that any
individuals supplied by the PSC are shareholders or directors;
That, in order to benefit from the transfer of liability provision set out in section 44(4)(b) of the Income
Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, any remuneration payable by the PSC to any individuals supplied
by it is treated by the PSC as employment income;
That, any other payments (which do not amount to remuneration) made by the PSC to any individuals
supplied by it are treated as dividend income as a genuine consequence of that individual's
shareholding in the PSC;
That the PSC is VAT registered;
That if the PSC is VAT registered I will provide a copy of the VAT Registration Certificate;
That the PSC is not an Offshore Company.
Should the PSC fail to meet the above criteria, then the PSC will be unable to provide their service to the <Recruitment company>

Hmmm - so you sign that and blow your right of substitution because everyone has to be a director or owns more than 5% of your company.

[The Spartan]

Just had the most hilarious conversation ever with the CO of the recruitment company basically telling me that if I didn't accept the declaration, that it would be a flag to HMRC because as per the norm every other contractor is signing it:

In relation to the agency legislation (Chapter 7, Part 2 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003) (also
known as the Onshore Intermediary legislation), on behalf of <The Company> I declare:
That all individual(s) supplied by <The Company> and <ROA> (known as PSC) is/are
owners/directors and shareholders of the company (such shareholding is more than 5%);
That the PSC will provide such evidence as required by <The Recruitment Company> that any
individuals supplied by the PSC are shareholders or directors;
That, in order to benefit from the transfer of liability provision set out in section 44(4)(b) of the Income
Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, any remuneration payable by the PSC to any individuals supplied
by it is treated by the PSC as employment income;
That, any other payments (which do not amount to remuneration) made by the PSC to any individuals
supplied by it are treated as dividend income as a genuine consequence of that individual's
shareholding in the PSC;
That the PSC is VAT registered;
That if the PSC is VAT registered I will provide a copy of the VAT Registration Certificate;
That the PSC is not an Offshore Company.
Should the PSC fail to meet the above criteria, then the PSC will be unable to provide their service to the <Recruitment company>

[northernladuk]

you got that right, the thought had definitely crossed my mind. Glad it's resolved now but I'm horrified at how such a small change in legislation has been taken.

To be ever so slightly fair to the agency it might be a small change but if they have misunderstood it ,which looks likely, it could look like they are exposing themselves to a lot of risk hence the knee jerk reaction.

Actually saying thay, **** Em, they screwed up and look a bit silly now. No being fair to them.

[The Spartan]

It's more likely the threat of the Op and 299 of his mates turning up at the agency dress in capes and a loin cloths carry shields and spears that tipped it.

you got that right, the thought had definitely crossed my mind. Glad it's resolved now but I'm horrified at how such a small change in legislation has been taken.

[northernladuk]

Sensible use of the negotiation point there, or more accurately the negotiating baseball bat with nails through it

It's more likely the threat of the Op and 299 of his mates turning up at the agency dress in capes and a loin cloths carry shields and spears that tipped it.

[TykeMerc]

Just got off the phone with the agent all sorted now they're going to make the amendments after I mentioned that I would indeed inform the client that they were jerking me around with the contract.

Sensible use of the negotiation point there, or more accurately the negotiating baseball bat with nails through it

[The Spartan]

If you hit a stone wall with the Agency then a polite word with the client explaining why you're unable to accept the renewal due to the Agency trying to impose conditions may be in order. Nothing to lose at that point really.

Just got off the phone with the agent all sorted now they're going to make the amendments after I mentioned that I would indeed inform the client that they were jerking me around with the contract.

[TykeMerc]

Yeah definitely looking that way, the client is going to be very unhappy if I decide to not take it. I have no idea why they find it so difficult to understand.

If you hit a stone wall with the Agency then a polite word with the client explaining why you're unable to accept the renewal due to the Agency trying to impose conditions may be in order. Nothing to lose at that point really.

[The Spartan]

Agency getting wrong end of the stick and sticking crap in their contracts and not giving a monkeys. Sounds familiar :-)

Good luck spartie. Surely you're in the position of power here though? You've been there a while, client wants you to stay, agency trying to change the status quo. Can't imagine client would be overpleased if you said sorry, agency are trying to change things, I'd have been happy to stay otherwise.

Yeah definitely looking that way, the client is going to be very unhappy if I decide to not take it. I have no idea why they find it so difficult to understand.

[psychocandy]

Agency getting wrong end of the stick and sticking crap in their contracts and not giving a monkeys. Sounds familiar :-)

Good luck spartie. Surely you're in the position of power here though? You've been there a while, client wants you to stay, agency trying to change the status quo. Can't imagine client would be overpleased if you said sorry, agency are trying to change things, I'd have been happy to stay otherwise.