is this IR35 friendly?

[TheFaQQer]

[To BI or not to BI?]

Was that a wise decision?

If you had worked out the difference between being inside IR35 and outside, you can then see how long you can be on the bench before you start losing out.

As for the second clause, it's certainly unusual, but what could they really do to pursue you as an individual ? If they made you work for the client under duress, do they really think you'd do a good job? If a clause like that is seen as unreasonable by the courts there's naff all they can do about enforcing it.

Well, partly to answer to you, OS, and partly to give our fellow CUKers an update on the situation, first I will say that I wasn't desperate for the gig and I knew I could easily find another one, and, if that meant a few more days of lazy living, so be it. Also, I do not like being blackmailed by incompetent and devious pimps (how could he assure me that the contract was IR35 friendly, I wonder?). Finally, I like to believe that my decision may have triggered some spark of intellect and prompted the above mentioned to review, if not his contract conditions, at least his attitude towards our fellow contractors, but I may be a bit too optimistic there.....

Anyway, it so happened that a couple of days later the guy called me again saying that the client REALLY wanted me because he thought I was perfect for the role and could we maybe review the contract conditions and reach an agreement? Unfortunately (for him and, more importantly, for his client), I had already secured a contract which is much more satisfying (and more importantly, better paid) and IR35 friendly, so tough!!!!

Looks like there is justice, after all

[TheFaQQer]

Unbelievable! Opting out wouldn't have any bearing on the contents of the contract. I assume they're able to change the working conditions to suit as well, are they?

Any contractor would know that, but the pimp has a, shall we say, unique interpretation of the Agency regulations, and when you can opt in or opt out. They present the contractors to the client as opted IN, and then say that you can opt OUT before you turn up on site.

If you insist you are in, then you get an IR35 unfriendly contract, so they try and pressurise you to sign the opt out one. Luckily for me, when I resisted, they backed down.

This is in another thread of mine, here.

[Chugnut]

Unlucky that they decided not to negotiate.

I've just done exactly the same thing with the pimp I was dealing with - his argument was "our company policy is that we only offer an IR35 friendly contract if you opt out of the agency regulations"; mine was "my company policy is that I only opt in and IR35 friendly, so do you want to call the client or should I?"

Have a break, put your feet up, and look for something else.

Unbelievable! Opting out wouldn't have any bearing on the contents of the contract. I assume they're able to change the working conditions to suit as well, are they?

[TheFaQQer]

You are very right, Mal and another couple of clauses in the contract were even fishier than the ones above. The agency came back to me and basically told me to either take it or lump it, so I told them what's what and, as a result, I am now on the bench again......

T***ers

Unlucky that they decided not to negotiate.

I've just done exactly the same thing with the pimp I was dealing with - his argument was "our company policy is that we only offer an IR35 friendly contract if you opt out of the agency regulations"; mine was "my company policy is that I only opt in and IR35 friendly, so do you want to call the client or should I?"

Have a break, put your feet up, and look for something else.

[oraclesmith]

Was that a wise decision?

If you had worked out the difference between being inside IR35 and outside, you can then see how long you can be on the bench before you start losing out.

As for the second clause, it's certainly unusual, but what could they really do to pursue you as an individual ? If they made you work for the client under duress, do they really think you'd do a good job? If a clause like that is seen as unreasonable by the courts there's naff all they can do about enforcing it.

[To BI or not to BI?]

Yes, it is trying merely to ensure that any sub is under the control of the OP's company and subject to the same Ts&Cs. So fairly minor in IR35 terms

However, para 2 is a killer: you can't make an individual responsible for the contract if the contracted company disappears. That needs to go.

You are very right, Mal and another couple of clauses in the contract were even fishier than the ones above. The agency came back to me and basically told me to either take it or lump it, so I told them what's what and, as a result, I am now on the bench again......

T***ers

[malvolio]

doesn't the 1st part point to "substitution" and is therefore IR35 friendly ?

Yes, it is trying merely to ensure that any sub is under the control of the OP's company and subject to the same Ts&Cs. So fairly minor in IR35 terms

However, para 2 is a killer: you can't make an individual responsible for the contract if the contracted company disappears. That needs to go.

[Bluebird]

doesn't the 1st part point to "substitution" and is therefore IR35 friendly ?

[To BI or not to BI?]

thought so. i have asked them to remove or modify those conditions... let's see what happens

[TheFaQQer]

No,no,no,no,no.

[freakydancer]

"The Supplier warrants that it has identified the person to be engaged for the contract and that the person has been engaged for a period of not less than the terms specified in the contract or, in the case of another person, will be engaged for the relevant part of the contract"

Also:

"if the Guarantee is applicable in the event of breach of the agreement by the supplier, the named person shall perform the obligations of the supplier"

What does the estimated panel of experts think?

tulip creak without a paddle.

[To BI or not to BI?]

You're fukced

I knew I could count on your expert and eloquent opinion, duder . Maybe I should have put a disclaimer saying "constructive and instructive content only, please"

[el duder]

"The Supplier warrants that it has identified the person to be engaged for the contract and that the person has been engaged for a period of not less than the terms specified in the contract or, in the case of another person, will be engaged for the relevant part of the contract"

Also:

"if the Guarantee is applicable in the event of breach of the agreement by the supplier, the named person shall perform the obligations of the supplier"

What does the estimated panel of experts think?

You're fukced

[To BI or not to BI?]

"The Supplier warrants that it has identified the person to be engaged for the contract and that the person has been engaged for a period of not less than the terms specified in the contract or, in the case of another person, will be engaged for the relevant part of the contract"

Also:

"if the Guarantee is applicable in the event of breach of the agreement by the supplier, the named person shall perform the obligations of the supplier"

What does the estimated panel of experts think?