Originally posted by malvolio
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Confirmation of Arrangements document
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Confirmation of Arrangements document"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostI, on the other hand, am not. Your contract with the agency is nothing to do with their contract with their customer. OK, there may well be conflicting clauses in between the two - in fact there are in almost all contracts since they are serving different purposes - but that of itself does not void either one. The whole point of a CoA is to document the actual working practices on the ground in the event that such a contradiction appears in a case
And from there it follows that line management won't be allowed to sign them because they will inevitably conflict with the negotiated client/agency contract agreed with the client's procurement team, who in turn will talk to Human Remains rather than the line manager to determine who does what under what circumstances.
So if you want out, start negotiating. Fighting the contract simply won't work
Only problem is engager only agreed them up to 6th April as nervous about what the post April 6th world looks like! But its a start, I'm hoping to get my foot in the door for a few weeks before 6.4.17 and then they'll agree them after as well. It also sets out a record for the person completing the tool to work from rather than guessing how I conduct myself.
Not saying its going to work necessarily but if its not agreed / determined outside by 6th April it'll be a short lived placement! Good Luck
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostI can't help you are spending too much time looking at complex details that won't really come to anything. It can be interesting yes but will it be useful for your situation?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by breaktwister View PostI know very little about CIS but am interested in how the A1P1 argument was dealt with. Will do the necessary research.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostThat's already been fought and lost with the CIS changes in 1999 and 2005....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by breaktwister View PostThe problem that we have with this whole shambles is that HMRC want to apply employment law between business entities that have commercial contracts with each other. The recent Finance Bill section that allows this (I am sure there is similar wording in previous Finance Acts) is s61M that instructs Courts to "consider the relationship IF the worker was directly engaged". So you can have a chain of quite legal properly constructed commercial contracts yet the Courts are told to ignore this reality and apply a theoretical assumption. Barking mad if you ask me and quite possibly illegal given that the right to own a business is protected under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostAs an aside, in the SLS case (? where the contract started outside but then was declared inside) the RoS was dismissed by the judge as irrelevant since the client rep - who had no knowledge of the actual details of the engagement - was adamant that it would not be honoured, despite it being in both client and agency contracts. The case wasn't appealed so no precedent set, but it does show that contracts are not necessarily binding.Last edited by breaktwister; 16 February 2017, 14:41.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by breaktwister View PostTo me this seems to be a position relevant to employment law only. It cannot possibly be the case in general contract law that one party can simply say "well I didn't really intend that" to escape their obligations under the contract.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
The only time it would be worth entering in to this argument in detail is when you need to use it, they won't let you and you are set to lose a lot of money.. and even then it's going to be so messy it's unlikely to go anywhere.
1) Put a CoA to your client and if they don't sign it you can jump ship immediately. The reason being that this would be an indication that your PSC-to-agency contract is commercially unsound. This mitigates the risk that ESS will be used to attach a determination to your PSC for 16/17 as you won't be under any contract with anyone at the time ESS is released.
2) Just hope ESS determination is not attached to your records at the end-client or agency and if it is that HMRC will never fully investigate and if they do then the end-client somehow back-tracks from their ESS input?
I know which option I prefer.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by breaktwister View PostTo me this seems to be a position relevant to employment law only. It cannot possibly be the case in general contract law that one party can simply say "well I didn't really intend that" to escape their obligations under the contract.
The only time it would be worth entering in to this argument in detail is when you need to use it, they won't let you and you are set to lose a lot of money.. and even then it's going to be so messy it's unlikely to go anywhere.
We are on the back foot anyway to be fair
Speaking to CUK, the former Inland Revenue tax inspector said that, in her experience, "most substitution rights are unrealistic where there is an agency in the middle."
Kate Cottrell said: "We are seeing more and more IR35 investigation cases where a claimed substitution clause has simply been treated as one clause amongst many carrying little weight in the [employment] status argument."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Patrick@Intouch View PostThe only way to agree on an understanding of working practices is to have a conversation about this with the most senior person that you can get hold of.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by breaktwister View PostIn Autoclenz the Court of Appeal said "only one party need to claim that a clause in the contract does not reflect their intentions in order for the clause to be considered a sham".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by breaktwister View PostIn Autoclenz the Court of Appeal said "only one party need to claim that a clause in the contract does not reflect their intentions in order for the clause to be considered a sham".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Patrick@Intouch View PostDon't forget though, it is the right to substitute, not the fact of ever having done it, which is the pertinent fact here. In this way, working practices can't take precedence over the contract.
Autoclenz Ltd vs Belcher & Ors (2009) - Brookson Ltd
The danger is that, even though a PSC contract with an agency might allow for substitution, the PSC does not know what is in that master agreement between agency and end-client, and regardless of what it actually says, if the end-client decides that it was not really their intention the clause could be regarded as a sham.
Leave a comment:
-
The only way to agree on an understanding of working practices is to have a conversation about this with the most senior person that you can get hold of.
Obvious problems with conflict between the most appropriate person possibly not being senior enough and a senior enough person not having knowledge of your working practices have been well documented.
Don't forget though, it is the right to substitute, not the fact of ever having done it, which is the pertinent fact here. In this way, working practices can't take precedence over the contract.
Actual working practices that may help though will most likely relate to supervision, direction and control. These are certainly areas that you can discuss and document and should do so in preparation for future conversations about your status.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: