Reply to: New contract offer

[WordIsBond]

1/ Pre-March investigation would be interesting, given that the determination post-March is inside if client hang him out to dry.

There's unlikely to be a pre-March investigation, if client gives him an outside SDS, unless there's a post-April investigation first. HMRC has thousands, probably tens of thousands, of easier targets than historical investigations of guys who have outside determinations.

If HMRC goes after this case, it won't be the historical one they'll be chasing, they'll be chasing the client. So they would be the ones under pressure first. If they wobble on substitution in that case, they slit their own throats. If they don't, HMRC certainly isn't going to chase the historical contract.

2/ Amazing that a client would be so naive/not risk averse - I'd have to agree with ladymuck and consider what clauses are being inserted into the liabilities section of the contract. The agency won't be your friend in this situation.

I'd agree on this, too. But I don't think any such clauses are enforceable, anyway.

[WordIsBond]

I'm talking about the 2.5 years prior to April 2020. Client not liable for that.

Doesn't change anything. Client IS liable for post-April 2020, and if they throw him under the bus for before that, they throw themselves under the bus for after that.

So they almost certainly will not do so. Therefore, I strongly disagree with your statement that they absolutely will do it, even if I don't neg-rep you. :P

[LondonManc]

I'm talking about the 2.5 years prior to April 2020. Client not liable for that.

pr1 is struggling with this. Sad little man has neg-repped me for disagreeing with him.

[LondonManc]

1/ And OP is still in the clear and HMRC tells ClientCo to bend over. Liability is on the ClientCo.


2/ Lance is right. They would be hanging themselves out to dry.

1/ Pre-March investigation would be interesting, given that the determination post-March is inside if client hang him out to dry.

2/ Amazing that a client would be so naive/not risk averse - I'd have to agree with ladymuck and consider what clauses are being inserted into the liabilities section of the contract. The agency won't be your friend in this situation.

[NeedTheSunshine]

No they won’t.

I'm talking about the 2.5 years prior to April 2020. Client not liable for that.

[WordIsBond]

OK. Then it comes to an investigation and a working practices check......
HMRC: "Hey clientco, would you really accept a substitute?"
ClientCo: "No, but we needed this guy to stay on site so we said yes. He's really good, helps out, does everything we ask, even asks when he can have holidays."
HMRC: "Splendid."

And OP is still in the clear and HMRC tells ClientCo to bend over. Liability is on the ClientCo.

Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?

Lance is right. They would be hanging themselves out to dry.

[ladymuck]

I'd check they didn't try and squeeze something into the contract to pass the buck on should their SDS be considered a sham.

[Lance]

They absolutely will

No they won’t.

[Lance]

Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?

No they can’t.
It’s their liability for getting the determination wrong.

[NeedTheSunshine]

Appreciate your input LondonManc but it feels like you're painting between the lines here.

Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?

They absolutely will

[LondonManc]

Also the contract is between the agency and the contractor. The end client is not involved at all that's the reason the contract paper doesn't have much importance.

It's also a very naive clientco that will simply give an outside determination with working practices that would indicate otherwise.

[Kanaiya]

No, not at all. I've read between the lines rather than painted. See below:

Also the contract is between the agency and the contractor. The end client is not involved at all that's the reason the contract paper doesn't have much importance.

[LondonManc]

Appreciate your input LondonManc but it feels like you're painting between the lines here.

Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?

No, not at all. I've read between the lines rather than painted. See below:

Well , according to QDOS "https://www.qdoscontractor.com/working-practices-review"

https://www.qdoscontractor.com/docs/....xlsx?sfvrsn=0

"In the case of an enquiry HMRC are likely to interview all parties to the contract and consider not only the written terms but also the ‘true facts’ which often carry more weight."

[Kanaiya]

Appreciate your input LondonManc but it feels like you're painting between the lines here.

Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?

Well , according to QDOS "https://www.qdoscontractor.com/working-practices-review"

https://www.qdoscontractor.com/docs/....xlsx?sfvrsn=0

"In the case of an enquiry HMRC are likely to interview all parties to the contract and consider not only the written terms but also the ‘true facts’ which often carry more weight."

[WebContractor123]

OK. Then it comes to an investigation and a working practices check......
HMRC: "Hey clientco, would you really accept a substitute?"
ClientCo: "No, but we needed this guy to stay on site so we said yes. He's really good, helps out, does everything we ask, even asks when he can have holidays."
HMRC: "Splendid."

Appreciate your input LondonManc but it feels like you're painting between the lines here.

Granted clientco could hang me out to dry to protect themselves in the event of an investigation but I'd have written proof they agreed to the substitution beforehand no?