Reply to: Clearing some doubts regarding IR35

[TheFaQQer]

I just accepted it

You can terminate in line with the termination clause in the contract. Or get a substitute in.

[SueEllen]

I just accepted it today and after that another offer came through, which is closer to home and more geared to towards my skillset.

A few weeks ago I have had one client back down on me after 3 rounds of interviews and verbally making me an offer.

Always accept subject to contract and tell the agency your contract will be reviewed by your legal advisors. Then get the contract reviewed.

If one contract is then complete tulip and you are having difficulties negotiating, you can sort out one of the others.

Then don't turn down any of the contracts until your bum is on the client's seat.

That would all depend on if you've accepted it.

If you've accepted the role subject to contract and you haven't come to terms then not a problem, if you've signed and sent it back that's a different matter.

I just accepted it today and after that another offer came through, which is closer to home and more geared to towards my skillset.

A few weeks ago I have had one client back down on me after 3 rounds of interviews and verbally making me an offer.

[TykeMerc]

Can I back out of this contract if I am unsure about it?

That would all depend on if you've accepted it.

If you've accepted the role subject to contract and you haven't come to terms then not a problem, if you've signed and sent it back that's a different matter.

Can I back out of this contract if I am unsure about it?

Forward the email on to your chosen IR35 reviewer.

If they still say "fail" then ask them to explain to the agency why.

I have

As for [not] starting Monday, it should be you asserting that ultimatum, not the agency.

LOL.. I am being a bit cautious cause it too me 3 weeks to land that contract..

Btw the Assignment schedule document looks like the following now.

The following additional terms are Assignment specific and form part of the Agreement. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms set out in this Appendix and the Consultancy Agreement the provisions of this Appendix shall take precedence but only to the extent of any such conflict or inconsistency.

Clause 1.2 of the Consultants Undertaking shall be amended to read has noted those obligations placed upon the Supplier and undertakes to perform those obligations mentioned above

[Contreras]

What a joke.

Rather than amending the clause in the right document, the agency just added the clause to the addendum Company Assignment Schedule document and has asked me to accept it.

She was telling me without which I cannot start from monday. :-)

Forward the email on to your chosen IR35 reviewer.

If they still say "fail" then ask them to explain to the agency why.

As for [not] starting Monday, it should be you asserting that ultimatum, not the agency.

[malvolio]

It depends if the contract states that clauses in the Schedule override those in the main contract. Or not.

Time to start reading, carefully...

One reason it makes sense to pay the extra and have the reviewer negotiate directly with the agency and check the amendments.

The product which I bought mentions this " We will also liaise directly with the agency should you require us to."

[jamesbrown]

What a joke.

Rather than amending the clause in the right document, the agency just added the clause to the addendum Company Assignment Schedule document and has asked me to accept it.

She was telling me without which I cannot start from monday. :-)

One reason it makes sense to pay the extra and have the reviewer negotiate directly with the agency and check the amendments. The agent will sell you anything that's convenient for them, because they couldn't care less about your tax position, so long as it doesn't impact them.

What a joke.

Rather than amending the clause in the right document, the agency just added the clause to the addendum Company Assignment Schedule document and has asked me to accept it.

She was telling me without which I cannot start from monday. :-)

[jamesbrown]

It's the right to offer a substitute that's the critical bit, combined with the right of the client to accept or refuse said substitute for clear role-based reasons such as experience in the required area (and a PM demanding that he hired you so only you will do does not meet that requirement).

It's not your problem if the client doesn't find any offered substitutes unacceptable for valid reasons; the point is that an employee - i.e. someone working under a contract for service - cannot have such a right hence you have to be working under a contract for services.

HTH...

Yes, it is the right, but it needs to be not unreasonably fettered (i.e. the clear role-based reasons you mention). Beyond that, it needs to be applied consistently in the upper contract of an agency relationship, so that it's a real right and not contradicted elsewhere. Personally, I'd always be concerned if there was any suggestion (or evidence) of D&C, regardless of the other status indicators.

[TheFaQQer]

It's the right to offer a substitute that's the critical bit, combined with the right of the client to accept or refuse said substitute for clear role-based reasons such as experience in the required area (and a PM demanding that he hired you so only you will do does not meet that requirement).

It's not your problem if the client doesn't find any offered substitutes unacceptable for valid reasons; the point is that an employee - i.e. someone working under a contract for service - cannot have such a right hence you have to be working under a contract for services.

HTH...

FTFY - "It's not your problem if the client doesn't find any offered substitutes acceptable for valid reasons..."

[TheFaQQer]

I did question the agent about that and I was told it is the standard contract they make all the consultants sign.

The agent also told me that the agency knows about this clause as they had to make the same changes for other contractors.

Gosh - the standard contract that all contractors sign and they've never had an issue with suddenly has a clause that they know about and they've changed in the past.

Who'd have thought it?

[malvolio]

It's the right to offer a substitute that's the critical bit, combined with the right of the client to accept or refuse said substitute for clear role-based reasons such as experience in the required area (and a PM demanding that he hired you so only you will do does not meet that requirement).

It's not your problem if the client doesn't find any offered substitutes unacceptable for valid reasons; the point is that an employee - i.e. someone working under a contract for service - cannot have such a right hence you have to be working under a contract for services.

HTH...