I think it is quite reasonable for clients to assume occasional travel costs are factored into the price of the contract.
My commute to London used to rush me for about £4k P.A but I never assumed the client should pay this.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Thoughts on negotiating expenses for travel?"
Collapse
-
I'm inclined to agree with NLUK on the wider remote point. The future will be a blend of remote / on-site and not an all or nothing. I don't see contracts changing wildly to allow the claiming of travel expenses - it will either be built into the rate or agreed with the client on a case-by-case basis. Most contracts I've worked under to date already allow for this.
The OP will need to see what their contract says and talk to their client. They won't get paid without client agreement so it's best to talk to them first before getting uppity over a rejected claim later. If it's a big deal to them and makes the contract no longer financially viable (as opposed to just a reduced level of profit) then they need to be prepared to walk away.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PerfectStorm View Post
The world progresses and good ideas stick around after they're initially needed. We have women in work now because they entered work out of necessity during WW2. When the war finished, they didn't all go back to the home. The same will be the case with WFH - it took a pandemic to drag businesses kicking and screaming to something they should've been doing years ago, but hadn't, because of "how it had always been done". Now they can try to row back, but the employees and contractors who hold the leverage aren't listening.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
Lockdown was always going to be a temporary measure to combat a global pandemic. It was going to end sometime and the working situation would change again. To what we couldn't have known but still, that's no reason to assume 'no mention' means the status quo will go on forever. To take a gig in a lockdown situation and expect the working conditions to never change is a tad naïve in my mind.
Last edited by PerfectStorm; 19 May 2022, 16:28.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostThey said he started mid-lockdown, which was before this shift back to the office had started. Although they don't say which lockdown. I think if you took on a lockdown contract that while you probably should have made sure you were covered for this eventuality, if it was advertised as a remote role and/or no specific mention is made of the topic you still have reasonable grounds to push for something. You might have to be prepared to walk if they won't budge though.
How long is the contract, OP? And when did it start?
The OP is in a better position than they would have been had their been no pandemic. They got a gig they wouldn't have been able to get normally. To then expect the client to cover some fairly insignificant costs (in the greater scheme) for a gig they wouldn't have been able to have seems to be going too far. The OP has saved more on travel in the last 2 years+ than the expenses for this gig so it's having your cake and eating it. That said I can see why dh000g and others might have a different view so I'll leave it there.Last edited by northernladuk; 19 May 2022, 12:08.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
I think you are right in some circumstances but I don't think forgetting to ask in a world that is moving from 100% WFH to a flexible presence is that valid. You'd have to have your head firmly in the ground not to see the noise in the news about back to office so more valid would be to clarify the situation first. Even in the old days where WFH was fairly uncommon it was good sense to check.
How long is the contract, OP? And when did it start?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sirPorkPie View PostTo those who advised I travel back in time and renegotiate this issue I wanted to say... good point!
But in all seriousness, thanks for those trying to help. I'll answer the questions below...
My contract is with an agency (Reed). They are the 'intermediary', between me and the Client.
The contract between myself and Reed makes no reference to place of work.
I pushed Reed on this, they said it's between me and the client to discuss. I've asked where in the contract this is referenced, as it seems reckless to give so much discretion to the client on HOW work is performed, especially given it's an outside ir-35 role. Awaiting response to this.
The commute is about 3 hours there, 3 hours back. Again, the length of the commute isn't a problem. I get work done during this period (documentation heavy role). It's the expense in particular that I'm trying to address. Cost is about £200 per day of commuting (£1k-1.6k a month). Season tickets aren't an option, as should they cancel the need to attend (which does happen frequently), it can negate the savings.
Agree on sentiment that a balance of WFH/office is appropriate. I'm not looking for 100% WFH here, just some accommodation for the costs or flexibility on the mandate to attend the office under same terms impost on permies... especially as I'm outside ir-35, surely? I thought that was a key distinction of IR35?
Do you have a UK limited company? If yes, then travel, car parking, fuel and train fare, Oystercards, and working away from home overnight stays in a hotel and morning / evening sustenance expenses are legitimate costs. You claim all of these costs back as expenses from YOUR LIMITED PSC LTD and ensure you set in this in the annual accounts. (a.k.a speak to a rep at Crunch /SJD or equivalent contract accountant who can explain the latest HMRC views).
I guess you need to decide on the commitment of your time/effort in terms of your performance. Will a regular 6 hours commute effect your drive? For most people, it will. Performance is related to quality of work. If work suffers, then the client is not going to be impressed, and you should not be either. Decide early on the actual emotional cost of this current contract, if it is in going to be a killer, then start looking for a grand exit. But if you continue to take the money, you, and you alone, have to be genuinely responsible and accountable for your performance and service for work.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sirPorkPie View PostI pushed Reed on this, they said it's between me and the client to discuss. I've asked where in the contract this is referenced, as it seems reckless to give so much discretion to the client on HOW work is performed, especially given it's an outside ir-35 role. Awaiting response to this.
The commute is about 3 hours there, 3 hours back. Again, the length of the commute isn't a problem. I get work done during this period (documentation heavy role). It's the expense in particular that I'm trying to address. Cost is about £200 per day of commuting (£1k-1.6k a month). Season tickets aren't an option, as should they cancel the need to attend (which does happen frequently), it can negate the savings.
Just remember the cost of the company paying your travel means it doesn't hit your pocket to the same amount. A discount granted but it's still not the same.
Agree on sentiment that a balance of WFH/office is appropriate. I'm not looking for 100% WFH here, just some accommodation for the costs or flexibility on the mandate to attend the office under same terms impost on permies... especially as I'm outside ir-35, surely? I thought that was a key distinction of IR35?
Just because you are outside IR35 it doesn't give you carte blanche to say no to the client on everything they want and you don't. Some things like taking on extra work, attending general client functions etc but requests to attend site no. I mean, every contractor on earth has had to attend client sites in some form or nothing, as has every consultancy. It doesn't suddenly become a key IR35 issue because it doesn't suit you. Need to brush up on IR35 as well I'd say sorry.
Suck it up, negotiate the best deal and then ask for more money at renewal.Last edited by northernladuk; 18 May 2022, 16:00.
Leave a comment:
-
To those who advised I travel back in time and renegotiate this issue I wanted to say... good point!
But in all seriousness, thanks for those trying to help. I'll answer the questions below...
My contract is with an agency (Reed). They are the 'intermediary', between me and the Client.
The contract between myself and Reed makes no reference to place of work.
I pushed Reed on this, they said it's between me and the client to discuss. I've asked where in the contract this is referenced, as it seems reckless to give so much discretion to the client on HOW work is performed, especially given it's an outside ir-35 role. Awaiting response to this.
The commute is about 3 hours there, 3 hours back. Again, the length of the commute isn't a problem. I get work done during this period (documentation heavy role). It's the expense in particular that I'm trying to address. Cost is about £200 per day of commuting (£1k-1.6k a month). Season tickets aren't an option, as should they cancel the need to attend (which does happen frequently), it can negate the savings.
Agree on sentiment that a balance of WFH/office is appropriate. I'm not looking for 100% WFH here, just some accommodation for the costs or flexibility on the mandate to attend the office under same terms impost on permies... especially as I'm outside ir-35, surely? I thought that was a key distinction of IR35?
Leave a comment:
-
I write into all of my contracts that my company determines where the work is performed. Kinda amazed to find people not writing this bit in, but who will happily die on the hill of weekly payments.
Leave a comment:
-
Its a funny one...... I'm one of those who live in an area where normally there's a not a huge amount of work. Remote working has opened things up massively for me......
I found that semi-local gigs (which would be bristol for me - still a PITA 1 hr drive and possibly nowhere to park) were keen to get you to agree to say 2 days on site "in a few months". Hmmm I might have jumped at this in the past but now there are 100% WFH gigs then not so keen.
Current gig is prob 2 1/2 hours drive so way too far. Its not happening. To be fair, they've no interest and have taken on people even further away than me. I just can't see them ever being able to insist everyone comes into the office. I, for one, would just say no thanks.
Then again, I think you've got to be a little flexible. One site visit every few weeks aint gonna kill you. Big difference than every week.
Been to site once (and to be fair they said it was optional). One long day with early start, late finish and £32 on the train - so what?
I just think those who kick off and say "Never going to site ever" are possibly going to spoil things for others.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostI see many contracts advertised as remote with no mention of travel or having to be in the office.
I presume the OP negotiated on those terms otherwise he wouldn't now be asking, because he would have been reminded at every renewal.
If you're right it should be in the contract that he's expected to be in the office. If there is nothing in the contract then it would be assumed to be remote as that is the way he's been working.
So I see what you are saying so my view on this situation is very personal.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
I see many contracts advertised as remote with no mention of travel or having to be in the office.
I presume the OP negotiated on those terms otherwise he wouldn't now be asking, because he would have been reminded at every renewal.
If you're right it should be in the contract that he's expected to be in the office. If there is nothing in the contract then it would be assumed to be remote as that is the way he's been working.
At that point the truth became clear and I walked away, since they wouldn't amend the contract to state that they would pay expenses if the trips were more frequent.
*Please note, I am not averse from working away from home, but I want to make sure that is factored in to the costs of running my business.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
I think you are right in some circumstances but I don't think forgetting to ask in a world that is moving from 100% WFH to a flexible presence is that valid. You'd have to have your head firmly in the ground not to see the noise in the news about back to office so more valid would be to clarify the situation first. Even in the old days where WFH was fairly uncommon it was good sense to check.
Need more info about this. A long commute to some is a normal one to others. Same with cost. I regularly work away so staying over is to be expected where some people think a couple of 100's of miles a week is unpalatable. Also there is some context here. You are selling your services to a client for a 6 figure sum so some travel expenses are pretty insignificant in the greater scheme. Give us some numbers.
I presume the OP negotiated on those terms otherwise he wouldn't now be asking, because he would have been reminded at every renewal.
If you're right it should be in the contract that he's expected to be in the office. If there is nothing in the contract then it would be assumed to be remote as that is the way he's been working.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: