Reply to: Signing Opt-in/Opt out Working Regulations and not PAYE contractor

[cojak]

Yep, the agency I'm contracting through at the moment has the same clause. Unsure if it would hold up legally (can one indemnify a third party against taxes owed *by* the third party?) but it's dirty regardless.

I suspect that we’ll find that out next year as it will take time for HMRC to wake up and rattle the agencies cages.

[Paracelsus]

There is no way I would accept the status quo, particularly as there is a clause included in the contract that basically states that if HMRC challenged the outside IR35 status and deems it inside, then I will have to indemnify both agency and end client for all taxes, NI contributions, legal costs etc. I doubt that that a large recruitment agency would remove such a clause. It seems, from reading a few of the other posts here that this is becoming a common theme.

Yep, the agency I'm contracting through at the moment has the same clause. Unsure if it would hold up legally (can one indemnify a third party against taxes owed *by* the third party?) but it's dirty regardless.

[dsc]

I wouldn't sign a contract without the SDS being issued.

Yeah I know it doesn't have to be issued until client pays the agency in 47 years' time but it damn well should be up front.

Agreed, also the law should forbid any changes in the determination, but as we've seen from so many threads here, it does feck all about that. If it was forbidden to change determination, then perhaps clients would take it seriously (and it would stop the whole "ah screw the contractor, tell him / her it's outside and later on we will say it's inside" approach).

[ladymuck]

Even if the contract checks out as being outside, it doesn't mean the client wants this role to be outside, they might've simply said everything is inside, but the consultant is trying to drop you in one saying yeah yeah it's all good just sign. I'd send them an email stating what you want and that you won't start without the requirements met.

Also as usual, keep looking elsewhere.

I wouldn't sign a contract without the SDS being issued.

Yeah I know it doesn't have to be issued until client pays the agency in 47 years' time but it damn well should be up front.

[dsc]

It was verbal. In fact, everytime I have emailed, the consultant just rings me back rather than replying. This has been going on for the last week, since requesting changes. I'm starting to think that this is just delay tactics, that he has no intention of making any changes and probably will carry on in this vain right up to the moment I am expected to start. His last update was in mentioning what will be happening in my first week. Not sure whether anyone else has experienced this but I have never experienced such blatantly ignorant behaviour in an attempt for me to just accept the contract and get on with it regardless.

Even if the contract checks out as being outside, it doesn't mean the client wants this role to be outside, they might've simply said everything is inside, but the consultant is trying to drop you in one saying yeah yeah it's all good just sign. I'd send them an email stating what you want and that you won't start without the requirements met.

Also as usual, keep looking elsewhere.

[PerfectStorm]

Some clients talk as if Docusigns are carved into stone tablet, but they usually find around the 5pm of the day before the gig that they are, in fact, editable documents. Either sign it on the understanding that that title doesn't make much difference (the proper contract and working practises do) or stand your ground. You'll be grand either way.

[Willy Win]

My proposal to the agency was to change to an Inside determination with an uplift in the daily rate but I'm not sure this would be likely at this stage.

There is no way I would accept the status quo, particularly as there is a clause included in the contract that basically states that if HMRC challenged the outside IR35 status and deems it inside, then I will have to indemnify both agency and end client for all taxes, NI contributions, legal costs etc. I doubt that that a large recruitment agency would remove such a clause. It seems, from reading a few of the other posts here that this is becoming a common theme.

[SueEllen]

It was verbal. In fact, everytime I have emailed, the consultant just rings me back rather than replying. This has been going on for the last week, since requesting changes. I'm starting to think that this is just delay tactics, that he has no intention of making any changes and probably will carry on in this vain right up to the moment I am expected to start. His last update was in mentioning what will be happening in my first week. Not sure whether anyone else has experienced this but I have never experienced such blatantly ignorant behaviour in an attempt for me to just accept the contract and get on with it regardless.

Start looking for another contract immediately there is no need to accept this contract. Your gut and our collective instinct is right.

And follow Cojak's advice about the other things.

[cojak]

It was verbal. In fact, everytime I have emailed, the consultant just rings me back rather than replying. This has been going on for the last week, since requesting changes. I'm starting to think that this is just delay tactics, that he has no intention of making any changes and probably will do right up to the moment I am expected to start.

Quelle surprise…

[Willy Win]

Also, when you said “I stated…” was this in writing or verbally?

If verbal, send them a stiff email reiterating that statement.

It was verbal. In fact, everytime I have emailed, the consultant just rings me back rather than replying. This has been going on for the last week, since requesting changes. I'm starting to think that this is just delay tactics, that he has no intention of making any changes and probably will carry on in this vain right up to the moment I am expected to start. His last update was in mentioning what will be happening in my first week. Not sure whether anyone else has experienced this but I have never experienced such blatantly ignorant behaviour in an attempt for me to just accept the contract and get on with it regardless.

[cojak]

Also, when you said “I stated…” was this in writing or verbally?

If verbal, send them a stiff email reiterating that statement.

[cojak]

Contact the end client and tell them to collect the stuff they sent you.

This is beginning to look more like an agency stitch-up - they are trying to bulldoze you into accepting the contract by arranging it around you.

I would bet a pound to a penny that this is inside IR35 as well.

[Willy Win]

Baffled. I have not yet agreed with certain clauses in the contract, which I corresponded with the agency about (and awaiting feedback) nor signed it, yet without my permission, the agency has arranged with the client to have IT equipment sent to my address which arrived today. I had already stated not to have anything sent because I had not yet agreed to or signed the contract. Where do I stand here?

[Willy Win]

Who did the SDS? It needs to be the client. But it sounds like whoever I’d it doesn’t understand it.

The SDS came from the end client

[malvolio]

This makes no sense at all.

However if you have an SDS that states outside ir35 the it sounds like you’re in the clear. But…. Who did the SDS? It needs to be the client. But it sounds like whoever I’d it doesn’t understand it.

Equally likely the agent has done it and the role will mysteriously revert to inside fairly soon. It's not like there isn't precedent for this happening...

Personally I would walk away now. Both the OP and the client are at risk from this situation as it stands.