Proving MOO?

[justaquickie]

Seems pretty unanimous then

I guess where I'm coming from is that the permies were paid though they weren't able to work, so if I demonstrated the exact opposite deal was applied to my company, then that would by definition make me not a permy. Not a very sophisticated argument, granted.

[Bluebird]

I think the point here is that the money has been 'offered', i.e. the client is willing to pay you although not obligated to.

If you were the one instigating the discussion, then you are posing a problem in that you see yourself as an employee.

I'd just take the money, if the worst comes to the worst you can always say you were "working from home"

[malvolio]

The contractual test is, "Do they have to pay you for not working". If no, then take the money so generously offered and spend it. If yes, you're screwed for IR35 anyway, so take the money...

[meridian]

When you get investigated in 18 months' time, who is going to remember or care that you charged for a half day that you weren't there for?

Take the money and enjoy the afternoon in the pub

[Weltchy]

I'd say the fact that they had no office facilities, therefore you couldn't work would count against you. Surely this is the exact opposite to working from home being a pointer!!!

[Denny]

Hello All,

Quick (not so) hypothetical scenario....

My client moved offices such that on the Friday afternoon I was unable to work on site. Client generously offered to pay for a full day anyway, all very good, trebles all round etc.

But, my thinking is this... my contract has the appropriate MOO clause, but working on the principle working practices are more of a determining factor for Gordon, would it be a sensible thing to suggest to the client they don't pay for the Friday afternoon time and instead write me a letter stating something along the lines of "we didn't need you/couldn't provide the necessary facilities for the afternoon, so, although it's no fault of yours, we aren't paying you". Or something like that.

For my part, I would be willing to sacrifice the half day's money if it meant I had an 'IR35 insurance because of demonstrated MOO' for this contract.

Hope that makes sense, and thanks for your thoughts!

JAQ

I doubt that it makes much difference. After all you are being paid for your deliverables not your time. If the work was done that needed to be done that day to meet deadlines to the required standards then you had every right to charge for the day anyway, unless you agreed half days payment terms with the client.

[VectraMan]

You shouldn't really be charging as that's the deal you've agreed to. But then this is another example of how IR35 makes you act less like a true business as a true business wouldn't turn down money from the client.

No certainties either way, but I would not charge and just take half a day off.

[justaquickie]

Hello All,

Quick (not so) hypothetical scenario....

My client moved offices such that on the Friday afternoon I was unable to work on site. Client generously offered to pay for a full day anyway, all very good, trebles all round etc.

But, my thinking is this... my contract has the appropriate MOO clause, but working on the principle working practices are more of a determining factor for Gordon, would it be a sensible thing to suggest to the client they don't pay for the Friday afternoon time and instead write me a letter stating something along the lines of "we didn't need you/couldn't provide the necessary facilities for the afternoon, so, although it's no fault of yours, we aren't paying you". Or something like that.

For my part, I would be willing to sacrifice the half day's money if it meant I had an 'IR35 insurance because of demonstrated MOO' for this contract.

Hope that makes sense, and thanks for your thoughts!

JAQ