Reply to: SJD passes contract on IR35 QDOS fail

[SimonMac]

Why don't someone like the PCG work with agencies to "educate" them on contracts that are suitable for contractors? We can then have an approved list of "IR35 friendly" agencies which by it's nature would then force other agencies to want to be approved too as contractors will only want to work with those on the approved list. Surely, once an agency gets it right, it should just form a template moving forward? Easy

Because agents and IPSE are not looking out for the interests of the same people (I’ll give you a clue about the agents, contracts aren’t their clients)

[SueEllen]

Must admit I don't care about notice periods or finishing early.
Regarding the whole commercial arrangement, so are you saying some or all of these contract review services actually get to see the contract between the agency and the client? I completely agree about the whole commercial arrangement thing. If they're not doing that then paying someone to just review your contract with the agency means nothing, really.

No they don't get to see the contract between the agency and client. What the better reviewers do is ask questions which can then ensure the agency puts in important terms in which actually mirror those terms.

Yes agencies use bog standard contracts but if a client - and lots of my clients seem to - ask for specific terms they insist are put in between the agency and the contractor. In many cases the resultant contract has a few clauses that are repetitive but in slightly different ways.

[SuperZ]

IPSE (note...) have been trying to do that for years but the agencies aren't interested. Why would they be, there are running a £28bn a year business built largely on a one-size-fits-all solution aimed at minimising all their risks. They are also selling employees, not service providers, so clearly they need their contracts to look like they do and not simple B2B arrangements.

It's working practices that determine your IR35 status, not the contract. We know enough to get the "bad" clauses negotiated out these days, then go on to work as though we were just another employee, demanding notice periods, getting upset when gigs finish early and taking on work not described in the contract schedule. And do you seriously think your IR35 friendly contract with the agency is reflected in the master agreement the agency has with the end client?

If you're getting a contract reviewed, then do it properly. Use someone who looks at the whole commercial arrangement not just the IR35 bits. Then it becomes worthwhile.

Must admit I don't care about notice periods or finishing early.
Regarding the whole commercial arrangement, so are you saying some or all of these contract review services actually get to see the contract between the agency and the client? I completely agree about the whole commercial arrangement thing. If they're not doing that then paying someone to just review your contract with the agency means nothing, really.

[malvolio]

IPSE (note...) have been trying to do that for years but the agencies aren't interested. Why would they be, there are running a £28bn a year business built largely on a one-size-fits-all solution aimed at minimising all their risks. They are also selling employees, not service providers, so clearly they need their contracts to look like they do and not simple B2B arrangements.

It's working practices that determine your IR35 status, not the contract. We know enough to get the "bad" clauses negotiated out these days, then go on to work as though we were just another employee, demanding notice periods, getting upset when gigs finish early and taking on work not described in the contract schedule. And do you seriously think your IR35 friendly contract with the agency is reflected in the master agreement the agency has with the end client?

If you're getting a contract reviewed, then do it properly. Use someone who looks at the whole commercial arrangement not just the IR35 bits. Then it becomes worthwhile.

[SuperZ]

There's got to be a better way of doing this surely? I mean contracts are rarely individual things. To me this is all a great contractor scam, praying on fear. I cant be bothered to explain all but:
Contracts are rarely individual things. There's no custom contract for each one of us - we're not that special.
Template contracts - agency should be working with us to ensure outside IR35, then update contracts used for other contractors
Why don't someone like the PCG work with agencies to "educate" them on contracts that are suitable for contractors? We can then have an approved list of "IR35 friendly" agencies which by it's nature would then force other agencies to want to be approved too as contractors will only want to work with those on the approved list. Surely, once an agency gets it right, it should just form a template moving forward? Easy

Instead we have this £90 a time scam with "opinions" given sometimes and I very much doubt they read through each one too. If they get a contract from Hays for example they'll probably quickly eyeball it with another from Hays that has passed and that'll be that, £90 quid for 5-10 mins work, kerching..
And given someone on £400 a day is probably at £5-6k worse off anyway these days (flat rate VAT, dividend changes) and the public sector are now mostly "inside" contracts I think if anything the risk has lessened to other contractors. Depends what your daily rate is I suppose.

I do use services too especially if I think it seems inside but also just these days dump a lot into a pension anyway.

[northernladuk]

No disrespect to QDOS, they do good insurance policies. But, imho, using QDOS to do IR35 reviews is like asking your accountant to do it. Get your contracts IR35 reviewed by professionals like Bauer and Cottrell or Abbey Tax.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Your accountant? Really?

There may be some discussion around that area possibly but starting with asking your accountant is just utter rubbish.

[washed up contractor]

No disrespect to QDOS, they do good insurance policies. But, imho, using QDOS to do IR35 reviews is like asking your accountant to do it. Get your contracts IR35 reviewed by professionals like Bauer and Cottrell or Abbey Tax.

[SueEllen]

You're welcome
....30 prosecutions a year? FEAR, RIP OFF, ta da .
Sorry, I'm in annoying mood this evening .
I wouldnt be surprised if IR35 investigations get dropped given that they're making a decent amount out of hard working contractors than they used to (flat rate VAT, dividends) and the rates aren't improving and most pubby sector contractors are inside anyway.

If you know other contractors and do a search on here you will discover HMRC opens cases then quietly tends to drop the ones with insurance/who can pay for their defence a few years later.

[WordIsBond]

Sorry, I'm in annoying mood this evening .

You didn't have to say this for readers to know it.

Gordon Brown's ugly step-child was so poorly defined that it's hardly surprising people will have different views on contracts. They don't want it to be tightly defined. They want people to be scared into umbrellas or into operating within IR35. The fact that some people blow it off and operate outside when they should be inside is a small price to pay for the many people who operate inside (or within umbrellas) out of FUD, when they might well be outside if there were a clear definition.

So since HMG won't give us a clear definition of disguised employment, of course there will be times when contract reviews will give differing answers. They've left huge grey areas, and many contracts will fall in those areas.

[northernladuk]

Hmm.. 30? Sebs post says otherwise.

[SuperZ]

Opinions based on real court cases and legislation. Not our fault it's so badly implemented. It could still cost us a packet to get it wrong. I wouldn't call 90 quid or free with other products a decent sum either.

But thanks for your valuable input.

You're welcome
....30 prosecutions a year? FEAR, RIP OFF, ta da .
Sorry, I'm in annoying mood this evening .
I wouldnt be surprised if IR35 investigations get dropped given that they're making a decent amount out of hard working contractors than they used to (flat rate VAT, dividends) and the rates aren't improving and most pubby sector contractors are inside anyway.

[PerfectStorm]

Still about 30 prosecutions a year or something isn't it?

[northernladuk]

love how you people are paying decent sums of money for opinions.
Like with most markets created based on fear, you're being ripped off IMO.
Feel sorry for the poor fools reading through all these contracts. I'd give up after 5 and say "yep, you're fine"

Opinions based on real court cases and legislation. Not our fault it's so badly implemented. It could still cost us a packet to get it wrong. I wouldn't call 90 quid or free with other products a decent sum either.

But thanks for your valuable input.

[SuperZ]

love how you people are paying decent sums of money for opinions.
Like with most markets created based on fear, you're being ripped off IMO.
Feel sorry for the poor fools reading through all these contracts. I'd give up after 5 and say "yep, you're fine" .
I reckon behind QDOS you'll find an MP who backed IR35 and made all these stupid insurances that nobody will ever claim on mandatory.

[mudskipper]

I used the IPSE (direct) template last week

re: notice, it specified 1 month's notice for the consultancy to the client, and that the client can terminate immediately at any time.