Reply to: Private sector reform planning - should we use CEST yet?

[headsy]

That's not quite what the article says.

Sorry they brand it irrelevant when it doesn't give them the outcome they want

[NCOTBAC]

Looks like HMRC aren't even going to use it....

That's not quite what the article says.

[headsy]

Looks like HMRC aren't even going to use it....

[JohntheBike]

No so sure about that. I'd be thinking more along the lines these are businesses and doing a freebie coordinated with their competitors isn't as high on their agenda as we think it could be.

yes, and given how much these businesses depend on the existence of the contracting community, it's a little short sighted. But as I say, their agenda might not necessarily coincide with ours.

[northernladuk]

well, could it be that some organisations have a covert agenda and don't want to upset HMG?

No so sure about that. I'd be thinking more along the lines these are businesses and doing a freebie coordinated with their competitors isn't as high on their agenda as we think it could be.

[JohntheBike]

And someone should be asking why not IMO.

And it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect the paid for services to pen a similar letter en masse I would have thought. QDOS, B&C and so on.

well, could it be that some organisations have a covert agenda and don't want to upset HMG?

[northernladuk]

"the comment about IPSE not really delivering what people expect is true"

I see IPSE isn't included in this list -

Open letter to Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, by 10 contractor organisations

And someone should be asking why not IMO.

And it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect the paid for services to pen a similar letter en masse I would have thought. QDOS, B&C and so on.

[JohntheBike]

Feel free to relate to a comment made over 20 years ago about legislation no one understood. I'm sure it will stand you in good stead.

It's unlikely QDOS or similar organisations will be releasing any names as they will be looking to get business out of these clients. It would be a really bad move for them to start telling the competition who they are dealing with and level of engagement. As I said, they aren't doing it for free.



But it's still a year away and most are still in information gathering. What policies private sector clients want to put in place is their business really. We are just suppliers at the end of the day. I can't see why they would be making their engagement policies public, particularly this early on.


I very much doubt that is the case and will be a nightmare for the rest of us. As I said in a previous post, get the wrong person in that doesn't have a clue and it's going to end up worse not better.



I think a vast majority of us thinks that but I don't think many will bother making useless comparisons like that. They are two completely different beasts, created for different reasons and with different aims.
Pointless comparison but the comment about IPSE not really delivering what people expect is true.

"the comment about IPSE not really delivering what people expect is true"

I see IPSE isn't included in this list -

Open letter to Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, by 10 contractor organisations

[JohntheBike]

When the article says 8 of 10 will challenge it, it means they will complain to their client and will be told to get back in their box or leave to which they will do the former... exactly as happened in the public sector. Tons of bluff and bluster amounting to zero.

I doubt anyone will be taking anything to ET for awhile, after all, like in the Winchester case, it's back payments of which there will be none from day one. It will be interesting to see what happens a year or so down the line though for sure.. The Winchester case has hardly started a deluge of claims and shouldn't be too difficult to sort something to avoid this situation.

"When the article says 8 of 10 will challenge it, it means they will complain to their client and will be told to get back in their box or leave to which they will do the former."

It's the 2 out of 10 that will influence the situation.

"The Winchester case has hardly started a deluge of claims"

not yet

"shouldn't be too difficult to sort something to avoid this situation"

exactly, and that situation should mean a contract and assessment which is outside of IR35. Glad you see the value of the tactic now.

[northernladuk]

It's clearly of no consequence to me that until recently, no one else? has adopted this approach, but given that these articles intimate that many will fight any unjust status assessment, perhaps we will see more of this approach, i.e. using the ET to correctly determine employment status.

When the article says 8 of 10 will challenge it, it means they will complain to their client and will be told to get back in their box or leave to which they will do the former... exactly as happened in the public sector. Tons of bluff and bluster amounting to zero.

I doubt anyone will be taking anything to ET for awhile, after all, like in the Winchester case, it's back payments of which there will be none from day one. It will be interesting to see what happens a year or so down the line though for sure.. The Winchester case has hardly started a deluge of claims and shouldn't be too difficult to sort something to avoid this situation.

[JohntheBike]

Again with the useless points about something that happened 20 years ago in a completely different situation. It's ancient history. If you want to make comparisons at least use the Public Sector roll out for your comparisons.


To be totally honest I don't really see why they should at the point, beyond a vague communication that they are aware and looking in to it I guess. Maybe out of fact finding to see what the general feeling about how many might leave and how many might not but this early in the day when making high level policy decisions I don't really see the need to discuss it with contractors individually. If the plan is to try keep the existing people over a year later you could argue there is already and Ir35 issue with the client seeing them as part and parcel.

If a client is looking at an exercise to consolidate all their individual suppliers in to a single offering they don't go discussing it with all those small suppliers until they've made a decision.

Because last time you did that it didn't end very well did it.



If memory serves me right they delayed the public sector implementation once and then it hit. They've already moved the date a year for the private sector so comparing like for like then I wouldn't be betting on a delay. The only hope would be the private sector make a concerted effort to push harder than the Public Sector but as you've pointed out that doesn't seem to be happening.

"Because last time you did that it didn't end very well did it."

It most certainly did and from my personal point of view, it was very profitable, given that it cost me about £8000 and I was faced with an approx. £12000 pa increase in taxation under IR35, which would now have amounted to a huge amount. Money well spent I'd say.

It's clearly of no consequence to me that until recently, no one else? has adopted this approach, but given that these articles intimate that many will fight any unjust status assessment, perhaps we will see more of this approach, i.e. using the ET to correctly determine employment status.

[northernladuk]

yes, this info is useful.

" I don't see all that many contractors that have taken enough of an interest in what's happening let alone but up a reasonable argument if and when it happens"

it would appear so. When IR35 was first introduced, some of my colleagues succumbed to the bullying aspect of the rules and paid up immediately. Many years later, I worked right next to another contractor, working in the same way on the same application and he was also paying up. His accountant had persuaded him to do so, to avoid any unnecessary scrutiny of his relationship with his other clients.

Again with the useless points about something that happened 20 years ago in a completely different situation. It's ancient history. If you want to make comparisons at least use the Public Sector roll out for your comparisons.

It's interesting to note the high percentage of contractors who indicate that their client/agency hasn't contacted them to discuss the issues. Mine haven't either.

To be totally honest I don't really see why they should at the point, beyond a vague communication that they are aware and looking in to it I guess. Maybe out of fact finding to see what the general feeling about how many might leave and how many might not but this early in the day when making high level policy decisions I don't really see the need to discuss it with contractors individually. If the plan is to try keep the existing people over a year later you could argue there is already and Ir35 issue with the client seeing them as part and parcel.

If a client is looking at an exercise to consolidate all their individual suppliers in to a single offering they don't go discussing it with all those small suppliers until they've made a decision.

However, I'm keeping my powder dry until or if I need to use it and I don't want to jeopardise my lucrative position until or if I really have to.

Because last time you did that it didn't end very well did it.

There is pressure to delay the rules even further, so they may not affect me at all.

If memory serves me right they delayed the public sector implementation once and then it hit. They've already moved the date a year for the private sector so comparing like for like then I wouldn't be betting on a delay. The only hope would be the private sector make a concerted effort to push harder than the Public Sector but as you've pointed out that doesn't seem to be happening.

[JohntheBike]

And I assume this is the type of thing you mean? Hays have put an article up on here.

Public sector IR35 reform lessons are being learnt – at least by contractors' clients

And QDOS might not be releasing their client list, they are writing about the situation out there.

Contractors, is your client one of the few ahead of the IR35 reform game?

Although it's going to be interesting when this happens.



Bar many people on here, I don't see all that many contractors that have taken enough of an interest in what's happening let alone but up a reasonable argument if and when it happens. Maybe, like the PS carry on, the meerkat contractors will pop up a few months before it hits.

yes, this info is useful.

" I don't see all that many contractors that have taken enough of an interest in what's happening let alone but up a reasonable argument if and when it happens"

it would appear so. When IR35 was first introduced, some of my colleagues succumbed to the bullying aspect of the rules and paid up immediately. Many years later, I worked right next to another contractor, working in the same way on the same application and he was also paying up. His accountant had persuaded him to do so, to avoid any unnecessary scrutiny of his relationship with his other clients.

It's interesting to note the high percentage of contractors who indicate that their client/agency hasn't contacted them to discuss the issues. Mine haven't either. However, I'm keeping my powder dry until or if I need to use it and I don't want to jeopardise my lucrative position until or if I really have to. There is pressure to delay the rules even further, so they may not affect me at all.

[northernladuk]

And I assume this is the type of thing you mean? Hays have put an article up on here.

Public sector IR35 reform lessons are being learnt – at least by contractors' clients

And QDOS might not be releasing their client list, they are writing about the situation out there.

Contractors, is your client one of the few ahead of the IR35 reform game?

Although it's going to be interesting when this happens.

But if fairness gets flouted, and contractors feel they have been incorrectly placed inside IR35, the overwhelming majority will challenge this decision. Specifically, more than eight in 10 limited company contractors said they would put up a fight, not simply walk away from their contract.

Bar many people on here, I don't see all that many contractors that have taken enough of an interest in what's happening let alone but up a reasonable argument if and when it happens. Maybe, like the PS carry on, the meerkat contractors will pop up a few months before it hits.

[northernladuk]

By useful, I mean to the wider community. I have no idea what the position is of any of the major players in the contracting environment. I can only relate the statement that Hewlett Packard made when IR35 was introduced, and that was "no changes to contractor terms and conditions as a result of IR35"

Feel free to relate to a comment made over 20 years ago about legislation no one understood. I'm sure it will stand you in good stead.

It's unlikely QDOS or similar organisations will be releasing any names as they will be looking to get business out of these clients. It would be a really bad move for them to start telling the competition who they are dealing with and level of engagement. As I said, they aren't doing it for free.

If an organisation has a vested interest in any issues, then I would have thought that they would use funds to establish the implications to them of those issues, even if a wider audience was also able to benefit from that approach.

But it's still a year away and most are still in information gathering. What policies private sector clients want to put in place is their business really. We are just suppliers at the end of the day. I can't see why they would be making their engagement policies public, particularly this early on.

It seems to me to be that it will be down once again to what individuals will be able to make of their own personal situation, rather than what contractor "representative" organisations are willing to get engaged in.

I very much doubt that is the case and will be a nightmare for the rest of us. As I said in a previous post, get the wrong person in that doesn't have a clue and it's going to end up worse not better.

I'm a member of IPSE, now mainly for the financial benefits it accrues, but I don't think that organisations necessarily represents my needs or aspirations.

I liken it to my membership of the Jaguar Drivers Club. I pay my subs in order to benefit from competitive insurance for my classic Jaguar and some general information regarding the classic movement as a whole. However, it's a club which seems mainly orientated towards social events, and I'm more interested in practical issues such as maintenance and restoration.

I think a vast majority of us thinks that but I don't think many will bother making useless comparisons like that. They are two completely different beasts, created for different reasons and with different aims.
Pointless comparison but the comment about IPSE not really delivering what people expect is true.