Reply to: IR35 and complete numpties

[malvolio]

How is having an identical template contract for every single contractor going to help? I would have thought this would be exactly the sort of thing HMR&C would look out for.

They aren't. The conditions of trade are pretty much the same for everyone, the schedules that define the work to be done are the differentiators. It's not a set contract, it's a pro forma with all the relevant content and instructions on what can be amended without destroying its purpose. Thre are also member-only variants for the other kinds of engagement such as direct or as a subbie.

[nomadd]

Cheers for turning a warm fuzzy feeling about a good wholesome discussion on this topic - with thanks posted just a few back, into a CUK of old good old slag off , for saying something you don't like.

Don't sweat it - SueEllen has never been the same since she married northernladuk.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So the agency are using the PCG template contract? Lucky you, I wish more agencies would do the same - saves hassle as it is already IR35 reviewed.

Beware that they might not be using the complimentary agency-client template though.

How is having an identical template contract for every single contractor going to help? I would have thought this would be exactly the sort of thing HMR&C would look out for.

[Contreras]

Its the "standard" rubbish that most agencies I have been placed by - spit out off the PCG site, so yes, by default 4 years ago I did...

My contract is built on a template provided by the PCG and "MY" working practices are outside,...

So the agency are using the PCG template contract? Lucky you, I wish more agencies would do the same - saves hassle as it is already IR35 reviewed.

Beware that they might not be using the complimentary agency-client template though.

[Scoobos]

WHS

If your contract stresses you out so much then get it reviewed otherwise don't post a thread on here that repeats threads that newbie contractors post.

Ooooooooo...

Cheers for turning a warm fuzzy feeling about a good wholesome discussion on this topic - with thanks posted just a few back, into a CUK of old good old slag off , for saying something you don't like.

FYI , I get my Insurances at a very good deal from someone other than that package. I realise I may be choosing not to use a site advertiser but there's no need for that.

Additionally, since my blood is up - my post wasn't about MY contract, rather the behaviours and understandings of my co-workers and their potential impact on any potential investigation; I posted as it's quite topical and despite your thoughts on "newbie contractors postings" you'll be hard pressed to find a similar topic on fellow contractors on the same site not understanding the legislation at all.

If this isn't up for discussion on these forums under your terms, fair enough - for me , its what its here for.

[SueEllen]

Total cost for showing some due diligence (particularly when it stresses you out so much)... £0.00

WHS

If your contract stresses you out so much then get it reviewed otherwise don't post a thread on here that repeats threads that newbie contractors post.

[northernladuk]

It's free when you buy PI/PL through QDOS... You did get PI insurance for your company?

Total cost for showing some due diligence (particularly when it stresses you out so much)... £0.00

[Scoobos]

So did you ever get your contract reviewed by the likes of QDOS or not?

Its the "standard" rubbish that most agencies I have been placed by - spit out off the PCG site, so yes, by default 4 years ago I did...

You've hit me where we differ now - I don't believe in giving them money a.k.a passing away my profits , with the only benefit being that I can tell HMRC that I spent money trying to in some way alliviate the obvious guilt of it being Inside that I showed by paying for it time and time again.

(worst sentence ever, its been a long day)

I said before I don't see the value in having the same old "cookie cutter" contracts reviewed by QDOS time after time, when I've already got a bit of insurance, my accountant has stated as part of my agreement that they will assist fighting it, and PCG also cover me a little bit.

Feel free to shout at me !

[darrenb]

Worried that I've alienated the permatractors...

[northernladuk]

Thanks to all contributors to this, its been an excellent read and I hope it helps others in similar situations to me.

So did you ever get your contract reviewed by the likes of QDOS or not?

[Scoobos]

Thanks to all contributors to this, its been an excellent read and I hope it helps others in similar situations to me.

[Boo]

In any sane system the length of engagement would be the main factor, possibly the only one.

You are insane to say that ! What on earth does length of contract have to do with employment status ?

Boo

[NotAllThere]

In any sane system the length of engagement would be the main factor, possibly the only one. ...

Only if you're trying to distinguish between temps and perms.

Which takes us into the nitty-gritty of being in business on your own account.

[darrenb]

In any sane system the length of engagement would be the main factor, possibly the only one.

The law needs to be simple to be effective. If you have twenty different pointers, nobody knows what's going on. Complex law means that officials and judges can pick and choose according to unspoken motivations. In such a system the people who have most success are the dishonest ones and those who can best curry favour with the powerful. So, law that is complex and confusing is really a variant of lawlessness, creating great uncertainty for one-man businesses.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

From the horse's mouth so to speak:

ESM1075 - Detailed guide to determining status: length of engagement

The length of engagement is neutral in determining the employment status. However, in general, the longer the engagement the more likely that it will be a contract of service and the shorter the engagement the less likely. This is not down to the length of the contract itself, but because the other factors are more likely to indicate this to be the case.

For example, the longer the engagement the more likely that the engager will want to, or need to, exert significant amounts of control over the worker, a significant pointer towards a contract of service. In an engagement lasting for several months the engager may want a right of control because of a need to move the worker between tasks. Additionally, the worker may become integrated into the engager’s organisation in a manner that is indicative of employment. The approach to the work may also be less business-like and the personal factors are likely to be less significant.

Conversely these factors are less likely to be present in a short-term engagement. There may be less control exercisable by the engager particularly if the worker is taken on to undertake a specific task. It is less likely that the worker will become integrated into the business. Personal factors may be more significant and there may be a more business-like approach.

However, it is always necessary to consider the employment status factors in every case and then paint the whole picture. The principles set out in ESM1013 to ESM1095 above apply to casual, temporary, part-time or short-term workers as well as to those working on a full-time basis. The result could be employment, self-employment or a combination of both.

Where there are a number of separate short engagements with different engagers, then this could point to self-employment (see ESM1093) but the length of engagement alone is not sufficient to determine self-employment. Where work is offered and accepted occasionally and irregularly there is unlikely to be a continuous (or ‘umbrella’) contract of employment (see ESM1073). Instead, each engagement may itself represent a contract of services or a contract for services.