Reply to: Agency - Working woutout a Contract/IR35 backlog?

[northernladuk]

My reply when agency are "too busy" to sort contract is :-

Not my circus, not my monkeys, work late and sort it......

Cool story bro... that will sort it.

[northernladuk]

Once again - there is no need for an SDS to be issued until after the contract has begun.

No need but looking at the mess some people are in you should move heaven and earth to make sure you have one before it starts.

[psychocandy]

My reply when agency are "too busy" to sort contract is :-

Not my circus, not my monkeys, work late and sort it......

[eek]

Very dodgy! Have you received an SDS? Either for the original end client or the new one?
Who would be liable for taxes, etc, if it was found to be Inside, and if HMRC knock on your door, how are you going to explain the business relationship?
You could run it past QDOS or similar, but I'd find another contract and run asap.

Once again - there is no need for an SDS to be issued until after the contract has begun.

[velcro]

Very dodgy! Have you received an SDS? Either for the original end client or the new one?
Who would be liable for taxes, etc, if it was found to be Inside, and if HMRC knock on your door, how are you going to explain the business relationship?
You could run it past QDOS or similar, but I'd find another contract and run asap.

[krytonsheep]

The whole thing sounds dodgy. It's almost like they're doing some kind of tax evasion and don't want any paper trail.

[GalContractor2873]

All Outside IR35.

No, their head of compliance have said that no signatures are necessary since its like 'going into a shop' apparently.

I suspect the pimping situation sounds most likely. The T&C says that I'm working on behalf of one of the agency consultants rather than the supply of my limited to the client.

[northernladuk]

This is a brand new contract. New client. Same representative agency. It doesn't seem right that e.g. you've been working stacking shelves for Tesco.
Now they want you at M&S and have just given you a paper that says 'you're now there' without asking you to sign the conditions of the new role

Inside or outside?

There are two elements to the engagement. The SOW about what you are engaged to do and the T&C's about how you get paid, notice and so on. The SOW must be different as you are carrying out a different role, the T&C's between you and the agency are the same so can continue for engagement to engagement. It's not very good practice but if, and that's a big if at this point, the two things are in place as mentioned then you should be covered. You must be signing for something starting with a new client surely?

Sounds like you are in some sort of contract with the agent to pimp you out as an employee of the agency rather than a true B2B contract style situation but we can only guess with what you are telling us

It's difficult to say as you aren't really giving us hard facts to go on. You haven't said what the new piece of paper tells you or the engagement style so hard to advise.

[GalContractor2873]

This is a brand new contract. New client. Same representative agency. It doesn't seem right that e.g. you've been working stacking shelves for Tesco.
Now they want you at M&S and have just given you a paper that says 'you're now there' without asking you to sign the conditions of the new role

[northernladuk]

I recieved this as the context for why they are no longer issuing contracts that are co-signed:


'As mentioned, we rely on deemed acceptance so no signature is required. This is the same logic behind you not having to sign each time you buy something from a shop – you are accepting by your actions.'

Any legally minded folk with a view?

This is correct. If you continue to work and they continue to pay you then a contract has formed that will have the same conditions as the last one signed.

It's a pretty piss poor way of doing things and makes it more complex should things go wrong but they are correct.

EDIT : I haven't read the whole thread again but are you inside or outside? Rolling contractors witout new SOW and signatures isn't great if you are supposed to be outside. Just rolling over with no new agreed and signed terms looks very bum on seat/part and parcel to me.

[GalContractor2873]

I recieved this as the context for why they are no longer issuing contracts that are co-signed:


'As mentioned, we rely on deemed acceptance so no signature is required. This is the same logic behind you not having to sign each time you buy something from a shop – you are accepting by your actions.'

Any legally minded folk with a view?

The MD also asked their head of compliance to issue me with a co signed contract now.
Only after saying that the above doesn't protect Contractors in any way and that we would expect to have documentation before starting.

[GalContractor2873]

Sorry to resurrect this. I am now on the second placement and this Agent (apparently with up to 550 of us working for them) is now issuing contracts (or project confirmations) without the need for signatures..on either side.
The MD sent me an email saying how they were compliant but having been pushed by their recruitment staff to start work with no documents it doesn't feel like there is integrity much.

They switched to just sending contractors a PDF and they just deleted the original clause of digital signatures and electronic timestamps in the project letter.

Is this binding? Is it dodgy? It doesn't feel like it protects the contractor much. Any thoughts appreciated.

Thanks, painfully, still working with the same agent.

[northernladuk]

What if it is a new client that the agent put me forward for? Am pretty certain I wont want to work with this agent ever again

No problems if it's a new client. The handcuff that hobnob mention is you cut the agent out with the current client. The agent is expecting commission for your placement and if you try cut that off by going direct or via another agency then they can sue for loss of income.

[GalContractor2873]

I don't think it's bad etiquette, but you'll need to check for any kind of "handcuff" clause in your contract. Often there will be something to say that you can't work with that client for 6 months (or whatever) after the current contract ends, unless you use the same agent.

What if it is a new client that the agent put me forward for? Am pretty certain I wont want to work with this agent ever again

[hobnob]

Is it bad etiquette to let the end-client (who really want me) know that I'm unlikely to continue being represented by the agency (who put me forward) after my current gig ends. And say they wanted to engage me as an independent contractor, they were welcome to?..

I don't think it's bad etiquette, but you'll need to check for any kind of "handcuff" clause in your contract. Often there will be something to say that you can't work with that client for 6 months (or whatever) after the current contract ends, unless you use the same agent.