• 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: Contract Wording

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.

Previously on "Contract Wording"

Collapse

  • NHS1979
    replied
    Just want to say thanks to Andy for all your help - you're a legend

    Leave a comment:


  • MeMeMe1966
    replied
    http://forums.contractoruk.com/publi...-client-4.html

    post number 34.

    Leave a comment:


  • New
    replied
    For info,

    I've just found the same clause dropped into an updated T&C for suppliers to a UK Uni. (just below the clause that says their determination on IR35 is final.)

    Cake and eat it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy Hallett
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    When someone posts their contract wording on here and you recognise it ignore them, as they will be told early in the thread to get it reviewed by a legal advisor.

    Though this thread was amusing...
    Noted.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by Andy Hallett View Post
    As always I always value feedback on how we can be a better company.
    When someone posts their contract wording on here and you recognise it ignore them, as they will be told early in the thread to get it reviewed by a legal advisor.

    Though this thread was amusing...

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy Hallett
    replied
    Contract Wording

    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Yeah he's got work managing an agency. He'd put you on to the account managers and drones and you are back to square one.
    If you had made that comment a few years ago I might have [secretly] agreed with you.

    We've been on a journey the last few years to put our customers at the heart of everything we do. We have introduced an NPS system and things like promotions and appraisals take these scores and comments into account, not just how much cash someone has brought it.

    We also have been very careful about the culture we create. This extends to the people we hire, the values we hold and the opportunities we give to our people. This Employer Value Proposition means that we look past the bottom line.

    Companies that simply focus on profit will be average. Companies that focus on their customers and their staff are generally the most successful, the profits logically follow. With 5000 U.K. recruitment firms starting each year it is a congested market.

    So whilst I agree not everything we do will be perfect, we are closer that when I first started posting on here 4-5 years ago and will continue on that journey. As always I always value feedback on how we can be a better company.
    Last edited by Andy Hallett; 4 April 2017, 07:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Yeah but he's got work managing an group of agencies. He'd put you on to the account managers and drones and you are back to square one. But I know what you mean.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 4 April 2017, 07:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • WordIsBond
    replied
    I always go direct, and currently have more work than I can handle. But I'd just like to say that if I'm ever looking to go through an agent or place one of my employees through an agent, this thread, while quite amusing, also makes me think Andy Hallett is the first person I'd contact to see if he's got anything on.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by NomDePlum View Post
    Which strongly implies that the OP should not accept these clauses
    That much is given. To a large extent, the question over what is enforceable is a sideshow. You don't really want to get into a position where that needs to be tested. If they agreed only to a re-wording would you then accept it? I probably wouldn't TBH, as a matter of principle. But remember, the current situation with IR35 is that YourCo is ultimately liable and it can take necessary precautions to indemnify itself (if it really wants to). If anything, the new PS rules are more favourable than the current rules if a PSB has deemed a contract outside. It's going to be inherently difficult to reverse that at tribunal, unless the PSB has been negligent (in which case they are liable anyway).

    Leave a comment:


  • NomDePlum
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    All clauses are enforceable if both sides have agreed to them... It's whether or not they are risky or onerous to one side, in which case they should be negotiated down before signing the contract.

    And, as has also been alluded to (if indirectly), the agencies and clients need to protect themselves from the cowboys on our side as well; especially those who prefer not to engage on an out-and-out B2B basis and think they want (or need) things like gentle notice periods and guaranteed work.
    Which strongly implies that the OP should not accept these clauses and should ask for their removal surely given Andy's explanation as they seem to be pretty much catch-all.

    In the case I asked about specifically (off-payroll) your answer implies that these clauses move the liability from end-client to the Ltd company particularly if there is a similar clause in the higher contract between the end-client and the Agent. Or am I reading this wrong?

    If so then pretty scary and not really something that can be explained away by just citing 'Cowboys' as the end-client and agency now have at least as much responsibility in these regards now as anyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    All clauses are enforceable if both sides have agreed to them... It's whether or not they are risky or onerous to one side, in which case they should be negotiated down before signing the contract.

    And, as has also been alluded to (if indirectly), the agencies and clients need to protect themselves from the cowboys on our side as well; especially those who prefer not to engage on an out-and-out B2B basis and think they want (or need) things like gentle notice periods and guaranteed work.
    In terms of whether a contract clause is enforceable, it really depends. The courts often "look through" sweeping clauses to establish what the parties really intended. I can look out some case law on this if you want. It isn't enough that both parties sign a contract. To take a simple example, you cannot enforce something that contravenes statute law. To take a more complex example, an indemnity clause or a handcuff clause has a greater risk of being "looked through" if it is written to catch all circumstances or a concrete loss is difficult to identify. That doesn't mean such clauses are completely ineffective, only that they may be re-interpreted by the courts with a much narrower (commercial) scope than the clause originally envisaged. Again, though, I am not a lawyer, just someone who takes a passing interest in the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by NomDePlum View Post
    That sounds like a 'Yes' to also being related to off-payroll liabilities Andy. Am I mis-interpreting that? Also there was a previous comment that alluded to these clauses being pretty ineffective/unenforceable. What's your take o that?
    All clauses are enforceable if both sides have agreed to them... It's whether or not they are risky or onerous to one side, in which case they should be negotiated down before signing the contract.

    And, as has also been alluded to (if indirectly), the agencies and clients need to protect themselves from the cowboys on our side as well; especially those who prefer not to engage on an out-and-out B2B basis and think they want (or need) things like gentle notice periods and guaranteed work.

    Leave a comment:


  • NomDePlum
    replied
    Originally posted by Andy Hallett View Post
    As someone alluded to above, these are quite wide and general clauses. This feedback will prompt me to review these clauses to make them more relevant if appropriate.

    At this point I will take all of your advice, and now seek qualified legal opinion.
    That sounds like a 'Yes' to also being related to off-payroll liabilities Andy. Am I mis-interpreting that? Also there was a previous comment that alluded to these clauses being pretty ineffective/unenforceable. What's your take o that?

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by Andy Hallett View Post
    Perhaps one of the most interesting and insightful posts I have read on this board (Sorry NLUK).
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by Andy Hallett View Post
    Perhaps one of the most interesting and insightful posts I have read on this board (Sorry NLUK).

    Since I entered the industry in 1999 not a huge amount has changed in respect of how agencies operate, what has changed is the amount of 'contractors'. Maybe I hark back to days when the internet was all fields, but generally your Ltd company professional was of a specialist nature. What has happened over the years is that contractors have become part of the fabric of some organisations and used as quasi-permanent staff. You've seen a proliferation, along with a convergence on reward.

    I suspect your view about having true B2B contracts is one largely lauded by specialist contractors, but would be shunned by many contractors who seek employment style protection (eg Agency Regs) over risk based engagements.

    I agree that agencies haven't changed with the times. Last year in the UK there were 5000 agencies set up! The vast majority of these will be treading the tried and tested paths.

    My next project, which was delayed by 9 months whilst I led our programme on IR35 Psec changes, is to look at new contracting models and how we can provide these new offerings. As I alluded to in an earlier post, our role is to create a marketplace and supply the demand for skills within it.

    It will be interesting to see how it pans out. The competing forces of the gig economy versus the government view of 1970's employment provide an interesting macro-economic challenge as well.
    Agree with this too. I think it's all pointing in one direction, in the long-term. The sort of BoS/BAU contracting that has become prevalent in recent years (and I don't say this in a sneering way) is increasingly likely to be filled by FTC or, at least, "employees for tax purposes". On the other hand, consultancy/expert contracts are going to need to be much more tightly formulated with B2B terms (with all associated risks). At the same time, the ability to arbitrage different forms of working are likely to be greatly reduced (which would be fine if it were done in an honest way, i.e. not via "employees for tax purposes").

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X