Reply to: Opt Out - Provide 2 years of accounts ?

[BlasterBates]

I agree with this:

Conduct of employment regulations: a guide to opting in or out

The regulations are designed to apply to workers who are controlled by the client, which means that not only do the vast majority of contractors simply not require the protection which the regulations bring, but also as skilled professionals in business in their own right are not controlled by their clients and so technically the regulations will not apply.

Not worth getting worked up about, notwithstanding, do you really want to argue that you are controlled by the client?

I would personally opt to opt out.

[TheFaQQer]

It's general forum lingo so you will find it on various forums including mumsnet. <shudder>

If in doubt, you can always ask your DH...

[SueEllen]

Sorry for not being up with all the lingo on here, but whats an 'OP' ?

It's general forum lingo so you will find it on various forums including mumsnet. <shudder>

[northernladuk]

Original Poster.

[mdw]

OP

Sorry for not being up with all the lingo on here, but whats an 'OP' ?

[TheFaQQer]

I'd ask DA, but, well, it's DA.

At least he's not Rory Dwyer (I had a call from his lot this week)

[Eirikur]

I think in return the OP should ask the agency for 2 years of accounts.

[SueEllen]

The bit I agree with you, to an extent about, is the 2 years accounts, but isn't that just the last two annual reports for your limited co? Given that they are public domain, albeit for a fee, what's the problem with providing them?

I think the OP is p*ssed off in doing the agency's work for them. After all the agency can spend the few quid and download it from Companies House.

[LondonManc]

They've already asked for, and been given, all those (passport, references, qualifications, plus accountant contact, bank statements, and more). The only thing out of the 4 if you opt-in they specifically don't have is 2 years accounts, which is why I asked about it.

The general discussion on these forums seems to say don't opt-out with out a reason, and I saw this as well mentioned in another thread...
Opt-in, opt-out?Legal specialist Egos comments :: Contractor UK

Most contractors I know have just signed the opt-out and never bothered to look into what it means, like me, in the past. I thought this time I'd at least try and understand it more.

The bit I agree with you, to an extent about, is the 2 years accounts, but isn't that just the last two annual reports for your limited co? Given that they are public domain, albeit for a fee, what's the problem with providing them?

[northernladuk]

Am not arguing any of that. Just the comment you made about opting in and the refusing any of their requests. Your choice.

[mdw]

So you want to Opt In which gives you a certain level of protection but also puts extra obligations on the agency to check you out..... but you are going to ignore any of their requests from them while they try fulfil their obligations. That's real smart that is. If they can't carry out the checks they need you'll just get dropped.

Have a look at this for example..

Opting out is an ambitious contractor's simplest course :: Contractor UK

Note in this you are the 'subcontractor' and the agent is the 'contractor' but it says...



So you are going to stop the agent doing that by refusing his requests??

They've already asked for, and been given, all those (passport, references, qualifications, plus accountant contact, bank statements, and more). The only thing out of the 4 if you opt-in they specifically don't have is 2 years accounts, which is why I asked about it.

The general discussion on these forums seems to say don't opt-out with out a reason, and I saw this as well mentioned in another thread...
Opt-in, opt-out?Legal specialist Egos comments :: Contractor UK

Most contractors I know have just signed the opt-out and never bothered to look into what it means, like me, in the past. I thought this time I'd at least try and understand it more.

[LondonManc]

So you want to Opt In which gives you a certain level of protection but also puts extra obligations on the agency to check you out..... but you are going to ignore any of their requests from them while they try fulfil their obligations. That's real smart that is. If they can't carry out the checks they need you'll just get dropped.

Have a look at this for example..

Opting out is an ambitious contractor's simplest course :: Contractor UK

Note in this you are the 'subcontractor' and the agent is the 'contractor' but it says...

So you are going to stop the agent doing that by refusing his requests??

+1

Certainly not a level of risk that I'd be looking to introduce. There's a friendly agent back up in Manchester that I've not had a beer with for a while. I'll see if I can sort a catch-up out with him and get his take on the whole opt-in/out thing from an agent's perspective. I'd ask DA, but, well, it's DA.

[northernladuk]

Why ?

So you want to Opt In which gives you a certain level of protection but also puts extra obligations on the agency to check you out..... but you are going to ignore any of their requests from them while they try fulfil their obligations. That's real smart that is. If they can't carry out the checks they need you'll just get dropped.

Have a look at this for example..

Opting out is an ambitious contractor's simplest course :: Contractor UK

Note in this you are the 'subcontractor' and the agent is the 'contractor' but it says...

In addition to the above, the contractor also gains obligations to the client. The contractor would be required to vet the subcontractor: they must confirm the subcontractor's identity and that they have the qualifications, training, experience and/or references required. The contractor must also notify the client about all their charges and will be restricted to a limited "quarantine" period on any charges to the client if the subcontractor tries to cut them out and work direct.

So you are going to stop the agent doing that by refusing his requests??

[mdw]

That that's a bit of a stupid thing to do possibly?

Why ?

[northernladuk]

Why? What are you implying?

That that's a bit of a stupid thing to do possibly?