Reply to: Views on failed clauses

[GB9]

Very true. But if you seek more opinions and then the consensus becomes it's a fail for IR35 you know you should definitely walk away.

I think many people would seek a second or third opinion from the medical profession for a serious diagnosis; I view this as being no different.

Full marks for diligence.

I have certainly found qdos to be strict, however, that gives me reassurance that a pass genuinely is a pass.

[ShandyDrinker]

IR35 is a grey law so the more people you ask the more opinions you will get.

Very true. But if you seek more opinions and then the consensus becomes it's a fail for IR35 you know you should definitely walk away.

I think many people would seek a second or third opinion from the medical profession for a serious diagnosis; I view this as being no different.

[dx4100]

In some ways yes. I took that approach as I sent it to my accountants (yes I know.. they aren't necessarily professional reviewers but do offer the service) and was surprised when they said in their opinion it was ok, hence sending it to the other company (of equal stature to QDOS) to review.

The point for me was that I had 2 groups saying pass (accountants and review company) and QDOS saying fail. I accept that it is open to interpretation but I have found that QDOS have been more likely to fail contracts over the last 2 years than at any time I used them in the previous 5 or 6.

For that particular contract I was comfortable that on balance of probabilities it was more likely to be a pass than a fail. It's a shame that even the professionals find it hard to agree.

Hence why I not only get my contracts reviewed but I ask the reviewer to put their money where their mouth is and back it up with insurance.

[SueEllen]

For that particular contract I was comfortable that on balance of probabilities it was more likely to be a pass than a fail. It's a shame that even the professionals find it hard to agree.

IR35 is a grey law so the more people you ask the more opinions you will get.

[ShandyDrinker]

That sounds like keep trying until you get the result you want rather than deciding based upon the result you are given.

As many have said, nighjng wrong with a bit of inside ir35 when necessary, however, under the new T&S rules this would be stone dead for me.

In some ways yes. I took that approach as I sent it to my accountants (yes I know.. they aren't necessarily professional reviewers but do offer the service) and was surprised when they said in their opinion it was ok, hence sending it to the other company (of equal stature to QDOS) to review.

The point for me was that I had 2 groups saying pass (accountants and review company) and QDOS saying fail. I accept that it is open to interpretation but I have found that QDOS have been more likely to fail contracts over the last 2 years than at any time I used them in the previous 5 or 6.

For that particular contract I was comfortable that on balance of probabilities it was more likely to be a pass than a fail. It's a shame that even the professionals find it hard to agree.

[GB9]

In this instance it would probably be best to walk away rather than work outside. From your original post it looks like the contract is well inside anyway.

As some food for thought for the future I would consider using alternative providers to QDOS to review your contracts. I used one of the other well known and reputable providers and was gobsmacked when they passed a review which QDOS had failed - if it's a contract you really want and consider the contract to have failures in grey areas then this may be worthwhile. If one passes and one fails you then have a dilemma...

That sounds like keep trying until you get the result you want rather than deciding based upon the result you are given.

As many have said, nighjng wrong with a bit of inside ir35 when necessary, however, under the new T&S rules this would be stone dead for me.

[ShandyDrinker]

I walked away from the last failed review from Qdos and unless they change the terms I'll do the same.

I could work inside but as it involves a lot of travel and expense.

In this instance it would probably be best to walk away rather than work outside. From your original post it looks like the contract is well inside anyway.

As some food for thought for the future I would consider using alternative providers to QDOS to review your contracts. I used one of the other well known and reputable providers and was gobsmacked when they passed a review which QDOS had failed - if it's a contract you really want and consider the contract to have failures in grey areas then this may be worthwhile. If one passes and one fails you then have a dilemma...

[LondonManc]

Not so sure I said blindly. I did mention later my assumptions in an earlier post so it's down to choice. My personal choice is to walk away from it as so far I have been able to get a gig in time to make it worth it taking the gamble. Another assumption I made is most would do the same. Didn't realise I had to explain so many assumptions to try make a decent point but there you go.

Clearly you did you grumpy old sod

[northernladuk]

Sorry pal, but that's the only logical thing that you've posted all thread.

Ideally you want an outside of IR35 contract.
If it is, then great, in you go.
If it isn't, then there are decisions to make in terms of the long/short term pay off of taking the gig. Going full-on PAYE for 6 months isn't the end of the world if the day rate is fantastic and being outside is simply a bonus. To turn something down blindly because it's inside IR35 is misleading.

Not so sure I said blindly. I did mention later my assumptions in an earlier post so it's down to choice. My personal choice is to walk away from it as so far I have been able to get a gig in time to make it worth it taking the gamble. Another assumption I made is most would do the same. Didn't realise I had to explain so many assumptions to try make a decent point but there you go.

[dx4100]

I could work inside but as it involves a lot of travel and expense.

Ah walk away from it then.

[LondonManc]

Also the point that struck me when I read the first post was, if that is the contract is that bad what the hell are the working practices like. Yes it's possible there is no link at all but it gets my alarm bells going.

Sorry pal, but that's the only logical thing that you've posted all thread.

Ideally you want an outside of IR35 contract.
If it is, then great, in you go.
If it isn't, then there are decisions to make in terms of the long/short term pay off of taking the gig. Going full-on PAYE for 6 months isn't the end of the world if the day rate is fantastic and being outside is simply a bonus. To turn something down blindly because it's inside IR35 is misleading.

[dx4100]

It is better than the bench...

If I needed the money I would take it, operate as IR35 caught and push money towards my pension.

I am surprised someone with so many posts would bother to have such a poor contract reviewed. It was always going to fail.

[Old Greg]

I walked away from the last failed review from Qdos and unless they change the terms I'll do the same.

I could work inside but as it involves a lot of travel and expense.

Maybe have some fun and quote them an inside IR35 rate?

[FiveTimes]

Indeed but was taking the context given by the OP that it's a BIG FAT fail, the consultancy won't change it yet the OP is only 'considering'not taking it. Yes he should get QDOS to negotiate but if they consultancy won't change his got to leave it surely?

I walked away from the last failed review from Qdos and unless they change the terms I'll do the same.

I could work inside but as it involves a lot of travel and expense.

[northernladuk]

Also the point that struck me when I read the first post was, if that is the contract is that bad what the hell are the working practices like. Yes it's possible there is no link at all but it gets my alarm bells going.