Contract extension

[VectraMan]

Not quite. The ideal would be a totally unfettered RoS, but the addition of "not without the approval of the client, which may not be unreasonably witheld" is perfectly in order. Nobody is realistically going to try to force a company to take on people it doesn't want.

It's all a bit meaningless anyway as the client can terminate the whole contract without justification if they're not satisfied with the service.

[cojak]

B&C isn't convinced that the substitution clause is as important as people make out because the client would expect the agency to do this (and it is hardly used even if it's in the contract).

They reckon that MOO and D&C on the ground make you IR35 fodder... (amongst other things, obv...)

[malvolio]

I had QDOS check my contract which had this on and they say that because they have to appove your sub this make the clause invalid and an IR35 failure.

Not quite. The ideal would be a totally unfettered RoS, but the addition of "not without the approval of the client, which may not be unreasonably witheld" is perfectly in order. Nobody is realistically going to try to force a company to take on people it doesn't want.

[mictech]

Mind you the substitution clause did state that any substitution would need to be agreed by the client. Don't think this would stand up to IR35 scrutiny.

I had QDOS check my contract which had this on and they say that because they have to appove your sub this make the clause invalid and an IR35 failure.

[PrinceNamor]

Funnily enough, I've agreed an extension and the agent has just sent a "contract confirmation note" and not the actual contract. It mentions the contract as that "previously issued".

Can't see it's a problem, but not what I was expecting.

I'd be concerned about your name being used like that. Mine lists My Co. Ltd. as supplier, and lists me by name as "supplier representative", which is not the same.

If it had been worded as a contract extension then I might have let it go, but as it says it's an assignment extension it implies I'm working for the agency.
Mine also lists my company name but then 'for the services of..'. Doesn't seem valid to have that in there as the original contract had a substitution clause. Mind you the substitution clause did state that any substitution would need to be agreed by the client. Don't think this would stand up to IR35 scrutiny.

[VectraMan]

Funnily enough, I've agreed an extension and the agent has just sent a "contract confirmation note" and not the actual contract. It mentions the contract as that "previously issued".

Can't see it's a problem, but not what I was expecting.

I'd be concerned about your name being used like that. Mine lists My Co. Ltd. as supplier, and lists me by name as "supplier representative", which is not the same.

[Bluebird]

I myslef would ask for a new contract worded exactly the same as the last one but with different dates, oh and while you're there up the day rate by £50.

[PrinceNamor]

I have just had my contract extended by another three months and the agency said that they would send through a copy of the new contract. What they actually sent was titled 'Assignment Extension' and explicitly states ' for the services of Joe Bloggs'. I get the feeling that the agency I am contracting through have recently started treating me more like an agency worker rather than a business relationship. In recent weeks they have asked for a copy of my passport, to sign a criminal convictions declaration form and I've also noticed that the timesheets they are sending me to get signed by the client no longer have a space for Limited Company Name. All this after having been with them for four months. When I quiz them about this they say it is for compliance reasons. Am I being paranoid or are they becoming decidedly IR35 unfriendly?