Reply to: 'IPSE Friendly' contract failed by QDOS

[MPwannadecentincome]

I'd ask Qdos to suggest appropriate wording in that case - that's what you pay them for.

All the point of a separate thread ... QDOS did and agency won't so relying on finding out what working practises will uncover.

[TheFaQQer]

Interesting thread, shame there is no conclusion.

Indeed

I have a contract which is not unfettered right to substitution but has the "which shall not be unreasonably withheld" in the clause - QDOS still consider it a Fail.

I'd ask Qdos to suggest appropriate wording in that case - that's what you pay them for.

[SueEllen]

I have a generic contract for public body, no mention of such checks besides they are not relevant for the role I am doing. Besides, doing those checks doesn't take away the right to substitution it just gives the client a reason to refuse a particular candidate?

I answered you again in another thread giving you this and another hypothetical reason. (I have thought of another different one.)

You do have the RoS but it is not unfettered because there are circumstances when the person you bring in shouldn't be there.

This is my next made up example. The client can't say you can't bring in X because she is German, but they can say they can't have her on-site because they found out she gave birth 5 days ago. (H&S legislation means she has to have 2 weeks of in an office based job.)

[MPwannadecentincome]

If the client has to vet each individual worker on-site for criminal record, security and/or financial record regardless of the type of worker, then you cannot have an unfettered right to substitution.

Some of my contracts with the clause in somewhere else mention vetting of my company's workers while others don't. If yours does point this out to QDOS as this is part of what that terminology covers.

(And yes my contracts are reviewed.)

I have a generic contract for public body, no mention of such checks besides they are not relevant for the role I am doing. Besides, doing those checks doesn't take away the right to substitution it just gives the client a reason to refuse a particular candidate?

[SueEllen]

I have a contract which is not unfettered right to substitution but has the "which shall not be unreasonably withheld" in the clause - QDOS still consider it a Fail.

If the client has to vet each individual worker on-site for criminal record, security and/or financial record regardless of the type of worker, then you cannot have an unfettered right to substitution.

Some of my contracts with the clause in somewhere else mention vetting of my company's workers while others don't. If yours does point this out to QDOS as this is part of what that terminology covers.

(And yes my contracts are reviewed.)

[MPwannadecentincome]

Interesting thread, shame there is no conclusion.

Anway in regards to below

At the very least, I'd like something like "which shall not be reasonably withheld" at the end of 1.4 - they have to approve (which is their right) but can't just say "we don't like her" as a reason to reject the substitute.

I have a contract which is not unfettered right to substitution but has the "which shall not be unreasonably withheld" in the clause - QDOS still consider it a Fail.

[Contreras]

Was there a definitive answer on this? Did the agency make it up?

Still ongoing I'm afraid

There isn't a definitive answer yet - without seeing the entire contract, no-one at IPSE can confirm or deny whether the contract presented by the agent to the OP matches the one reviewed by IPSE and passed.

Just asking - any update to report?

[TheFaQQer]

Was there a definitive answer on this? Did the agency make it up?

There isn't a definitive answer yet - without seeing the entire contract, no-one at IPSE can confirm or deny whether the contract presented by the agent to the OP matches the one reviewed by IPSE and passed.

If the OP is willing to share the contract in full, I have offered to take the matter up within IPSE for him - but without seeing the contract, IPSE won't be in a position to say whether it's an IPSE approved contract or not.

[malvolio]

Was there a definitive answer on this? Did the agency make it up?

Still ongoing I'm afraid

[UglyBetty]

Was there a definitive answer on this? Did the agency make it up?

[malvolio]

We're clearly interpreting what has been said in the thread I started in different ways - I see nothing that clearly says that the clause wasn't reviewed by IPSE, whereas you obviously do

I'm not arguing the point on here. But you're wrong.

[TheFaQQer]

Of course it's not official. Read what was said on the IPSE forum in response to my earlier post

We're clearly interpreting what has been said in the thread I started in different ways - I see nothing that clearly says that the clause wasn't reviewed by IPSE, whereas you obviously do

[malvolio]

You're clearly party to knowledge that I'm not, so I'll bow to your statement, assuming that's an official IPSE one of course.

Of course it's not official. Read what was said on the IPSE forum in response to my earlier post

[TheFaQQer]

It wasn't.

HTH

You're clearly party to knowledge that I'm not, so I'll bow to your statement, assuming that's an official IPSE one of course.

[malvolio]

However, that doesn't mean that the contract clause posted wasn't reviewed by IPSE and approved as IR35-friendly.

It wasn't.

HTH