Reply to: Accepting work outside of project in contract schedule

[TheFaQQer]

Neither the agent nor the client will give a flying feck over ANY of this guff because Zoco is fictional.

FTFY

[cojak]

I'd ask for the Supplier to put their request in writing to the Agent and for the Agent to then pass on that request in writing to you.

Then write back to the Agent to accept the new work from the client (and thank them) who in turn pass on the good news to the client.

Keep the paper trail with the contract to allay any fears of MOO.

Neither the agent nor the client will give a flying feck over ANY of this guff because Zoco is on-site and working his little ass off, which is all they care about.

All of his little 'paper trail' will be filed under BIN.

[7specialgems]

What I wanted to happen was for the agency to add any new project work to the scope of the schedule but they won't change the contract now it's signed.

I'd ask for the Supplier to put their request in writing to the Agent and for the Agent to then pass on that request in writing to you.

Then write back to the Agent to accept the new work from the client (and thank them) who in turn pass on the good news to the client.

Keep the paper trail with the contract to allay any fears of MOO.

[northernladuk]

It's a tough world out there. If you really are insulted by the comments from this thread, then you really need to think about the career path you are taking. You might also want to familiarise yourself with the posting style of the OP, and his former (banned) sockies, which may go some way to explaining the responses in this thread.

FTFY

[TheFaQQer]

Why does it matter so long as he does sign it ?

He's not talking about signing it, he's talking about modifying it after acceptance. Which is going to be tricky.

[TheFaQQer]

But, from the little knowledge I have at least the OP had his contract checked with qdos showing due diligence.

It's not exactly clear what diligence the OP has shown in getting the contract reviewed, since there are some conflicting posts...

I have a clause in my contract schedule stating that I have been engaged to work in the development of project x. Any work outside of the scope of this scope may be undertaken with prior agreement of the supplier.

There was no such clause in there originally I.e. no project scope defined. It passed their review.

These words I have had added on the back of some previous advice I was given from a legal expert a while back. Qdos haven't seen this clause.

The first review was of the basic draft contract and it passed. Then they had a look at the full version with client specific stuff, schedule etc. It also passed though no mention of project in the schedule.

So, they may or may not have done some decent checking and got the paperwork cleared.

However, they have now decided that they want to include a new clause in the contract, having started work and found the reality (which includes a high degree of D&C if you read the other threads started about the contract by the poster) and want to try to fudge the issue by putting something new into the contract. They are trying to fall back on the "I didn't sign it, so it doesn't count" defence. This is not showing diligence, it is showing ignorance.

The chances of getting a clause included now to fudge the situation are negligible - what does the agent get apart from a headache? It's hard enough getting clauses changed by most agencies before you've signed (and therefore have some leverage), but I can't see it happening after the contract has been accepted and two weeks of work has been completed - it's not even as if it's the start of the project, it's been two weeks.

I find the tone of some of the comments in this thread quite insulting frankly and not a particularly good advert for this site with respect to many others such as myself who are about to enter the contracting world.

It's a tough world out there. If you really are insulted by the comments from this thread, then you really need to think about the career path you are taking. You might also want to familiarise yourself with the posting style of the OP, and his former (banned) members, which may go some way to explaining the responses in this thread.

I think itd crazy to suggest he packs in his contract.

Given the situation that the OP finds him/herself, there are a few decent options to consider.
1) Fudge it and hope for the best
2) Ignore the issue and hope that HMRC don't investigate
3) Declare themselves inside IR35 and pay the right level of tax and NI
4) Find a non-IR35 caught contract

Fudging it / ignoring it and hoping are really not very sensible ideas. However, you may think that they are, and either of the others are crazy ideas. That's the good thing about fora - you are always entitled to your opinion (no matter how wrong you may be )

[Chunk]

Spend some time in general, unfortunately the OP reaps what he sows.

He might have shown a little bit of diligence. Shame he didn't bother signing it before he started.

Why does it matter so long as he does sign it ?

[northernladuk]

I find the tone of some of the comments in this thread quite insulting frankly and not a particularly good advert for this site with respect to many others such as myself who are about to enter the contracting world.

But, from the little knowledge I have at least the OP had his contract checked with qdos showing due diligence. I think itd crazy to suggest he packs in his contract.

Spend some time in general, unfortunately the OP reaps what he sows.

He might have shown a little bit of diligence. Shame he didn't bother signing it before he started.

[Chunk]

I find the tone of some of the comments in this thread quite insulting frankly and not a particularly good advert for this site with respect to many others such as myself who are about to enter the contracting world.

But, from the little knowledge I have at least the OP had his contract checked with qdos showing due diligence. I think itd crazy to suggest he packs in his contract.

[Old Greg]

LOL, do you have nothing better to do than pick minor fault. Agents are not very forthcoming with clause changes at the best of times and most will have a legal team review any changes, particularly non standard ones like this. The OP is on site, with an implied contract, with fairly normal practice being to not make changes to contract, trying to put in his own term in, not checked with QDOS or anyone, at a client that (we assume) is going to ask him to do extra non scheduled work (bearing in mind he has no schedule of work anyway), and the poster is a ******* moron...

Nope I don't think there is any exaggeration here.

Classic!

Yes, it should be either:

...do you have nothing better to do than pick a minor fault?

or

...do you have nothing better to do than pick minor faults?

[Project Monkey]

LOL, do you have nothing better to do than pick minor fault. Agents are not very forthcoming with clause changes at the best of times and most will have a legal team review any changes, particularly non standard ones like this. The OP is on site, with an implied contract, with fairly normal practice being to not make changes to contract, trying to put in his own term in, not checked with QDOS or anyone, at a client that (we assume) is going to ask him to do extra non scheduled work (bearing in mind he has no schedule of work anyway), and the poster is a ******* moron...

Nope I don't think there is any exaggeration here.

Classic!

[northernladuk]

If the problem really is a serious as you suggest, then yes (although with legal team review). Otherwise, your assessment of the situation is grossly exaggerated.

LOL, do you have nothing better to do than pick minor fault. Agents are not very forthcoming with clause changes at the best of times and most will have a legal team review any changes, particularly non standard ones like this. The OP is on site, with an implied contract, with fairly normal practice being to not make changes to contract, trying to put in his own term in, not checked with QDOS or anyone, at a client that (we assume) is going to ask him to do extra non scheduled work (bearing in mind he has no schedule of work anyway), and the poster is a ******* moron...

Nope I don't think there is any exaggeration here.

[Project Monkey]

His client/agent is going to allow him to put clauses in his contract without their legal team reviewing after he started? Good luck with that one.

If the problem really is a serious as you suggest, then yes (although with legal team review). Otherwise, your assessment of the situation is grossly exaggerated.

[Wanderer]

Why am I screwed without a signed contract - can't I just backdate the signature?

A contract doesn't have to be signed to be valid. You could get it changed but if they don't want to change it then you are stuck with the contract as presented to you.

For future reference, if you are presented with a contract and you start work then you have accepted the contract. It's helpful and indeed good business practice to have it signed but it's certainly not essential.

I do have PCG+ though. Seriously, should I just quit and get another role?

No, of course not. Forget all this IR35 crap, your contract has been reviewed and passed so get on with doing business and stop worrying and don't dick the client around.

[Old Greg]

Well that opens another can of worms that pisses me off tbh but lets not go there. This is Zoco and the quicker his tulipty threads die the better. We can't even call him a ******* moron here so no point extended the life of his threads.

Haven't we established that if a poster is a real proper ******* moron like zoco or psychocandy, we can call him a ******* moron and the thread gets moved to general and then we can all call him a ******* moron?