Reply to: Payroll service for IR35 PS

[psychocandy]

Choose another agency....

Not one of yours. :-) Wish I could....

[northernladuk]

I think she's stolen that answer from my FAQ

That's exactly what I thought...

[TheFaQQer]

Article on the CUK main pages relating to this...

Contractors' Questions: Can agencies block PSCs from public contracts? :: Contractor UK

I think she's stolen that answer from my FAQ

[northernladuk]

Article on the CUK main pages relating to this...

Contractors' Questions: Can agencies block PSCs from public contracts? :: Contractor UK

[Andy Hallett]

But if agency says nah we ain't doing it? Too much hassle....

Choose another agency....

[Andy Hallett]

So it has got to be the agency that does the tax/NI thing. So they are quite within their rights to refuse to operate like this?

BTW -remind me which agencies you represent?

Yes & In the UK:

Computer Futures
Real Staffing
Huxley Associates
Progressive
Orgtel
Hyden

[psychocandy]

It has to be the fee payer - the law is quite clear on this.

If you are direct, that's the client.

If you are via an agency and there are no other companies in the mix, it's the agency.

If you are via an agency and there are other companies in the chain, then it's the company closest to the intermediary that is used by the individual (eg a payroll company paying your limited company).

Fee payer = the company that pays the fees to your company.

If you use an umbrella company then this is all irrelevant.

But if agency says nah we ain't doing it? Too much hassle....

[psychocandy]

I don't think many contractors do in this area either. We'd certainly hear about it if you went for an interview and the client told you that you'd be fixing your mistakes in your own time!

Maybe lol. But at last client I did. They were a bit bemused that I did but didn't moan. (Deleted the wrong Exchange DBs so had to rebuild a few from primary copy - not hard but time consuming).

[psychocandy]

LOL Behave the the only thing that's grey there it the career civil serpents that work there, don't forget that one of my best mates left there recently and while he was there they did everything they possibly could to keep him. Ultimately while he was there he took every precaution necessary to ensure it was outside IR35. We used to have daily conversations on Slack about how he had to refuse to do certain work as it was outside the scope of his contract.

Ha ha. Know what you mean but its no dissimilar to a lot of places lol.

[TheFaQQer]

So it has got to be the agency that does the tax/NI thing

It has to be the fee payer - the law is quite clear on this.

If you are direct, that's the client.

If you are via an agency and there are no other companies in the mix, it's the agency.

If you are via an agency and there are other companies in the chain, then it's the company closest to the intermediary that is used by the individual (eg a payroll company paying your limited company).

Fee payer = the company that pays the fees to your company.

If you use an umbrella company then this is all irrelevant.

[northernladuk]

Know what you mean - clients tend not to understand the issues.

I don't think many contractors do in this area either. We'd certainly hear about it if you went for an interview and the client told you that you'd be fixing your mistakes in your own time!

[The Spartan]

LOL. Same in a lot of places. I don't think this client is unique in that - its always been a grey area for a lot of people. I will admit that.

Apparently, in this case, the one question that killed it was - would a contractor fix at their own expense? They said no we'd pay them to come in. Strange thing to say.

Even in other BAU type clients if things have gone wrong and its been something I did, I'd make a point of sorting it myself and not claiming any extra time.

Appreciate there are tons of grey areas with things like this at a LOT of clients. You could answer a lot of these questions either way I think. Just a bit surprised that they didn't appear to consider this.

LOL Behave the the only thing that's grey there it the career civil serpents that work there, don't forget that one of my best mates left there recently and while he was there they did everything they possibly could to keep him. Ultimately while he was there he took every precaution necessary to ensure it was outside IR35. We used to have daily conversations on Slack about how he had to refuse to do certain work as it was outside the scope of his contract.

[psychocandy]

I don't think this is true. I've yet to see a client that makes contractors fix stuff in their own time. It's part of the job to them. You code something wrong, send docs for review with mistakes, it goes through the process, comes back, gets corrected and through the process again. Part of the daily job. It's not a strange thing to say if they see it as part of the job at all.

I very much doubt you'd do any work in your own time, your fault or not. And even if you do client will see it as a bit of above and beyond and not you fixing it in your own time.

If you were the type that does extra time regularly you could try educate your client that's the time you do the fixes and it's your time but you'd have to be in the gig for that so no help when making the initial determination.

Know what you mean - clients tend not to understand the issues.

[northernladuk]

LOL. Same in a lot of places. I don't think this client is unique in that - its always been a grey area for a lot of people. I will admit that.

Apparently, in this case, the one question that killed it was - would a contractor fix at their own expense? They said no we'd pay them to come in. Strange thing to say.

Even in other BAU type clients if things have gone wrong and its been something I did, I'd make a point of sorting it myself and not claiming any extra time.

Appreciate there are tons of grey areas with things like this at a LOT of clients. You could answer a lot of these questions either way I think. Just a bit surprised that they didn't appear to consider this.

I don't think this is true. I've yet to see a client that makes contractors fix stuff in their own time. It's part of the job to them. You code something wrong, send docs for review with mistakes, it goes through the process, comes back, gets corrected and through the process again. Part of the daily job. It's not a strange thing to say if they see it as part of the job at all.

I very much doubt you'd do any work in your own time, your fault or not. And even if you do client will see it as a bit of above and beyond and not you fixing it in your own time.

If you were the type that does extra time regularly you could try educate your client that's the time you do the fixes and it's your time but you'd have to be in the gig for that so no help when making the initial determination.

[psychocandy]

WNLUKS ^^

From previously working there as a permie I know full well how contractors operate there and let's just say they should have all been within IR35.

I can't see that much would've changed between then and now.

LOL. Same in a lot of places. I don't think this client is unique in that - its always been a grey area for a lot of people. I will admit that.

Apparently, in this case, the one question that killed it was - would a contractor fix at their own expense? They said no we'd pay them to come in. Strange thing to say.

Even in other BAU type clients if things have gone wrong and its been something I did, I'd make a point of sorting it myself and not claiming any extra time.

Appreciate there are tons of grey areas with things like this at a LOT of clients. You could answer a lot of these questions either way I think. Just a bit surprised that they didn't appear to consider this.