Reply to: When does SDA Matter?

[Paralytic]

Yeah I was rushing, I'll try harder to get my TLA's correct.

You really should have deliberately misspelled TLW just to wind folk up

[sim2kuk]

The contractor signed the contract. The contract was based on information and laws as they stood at the time. No misleading was involved.



The people who are complicit are those who support and vote for the government that are railroading the changes in. It’s not the agency or the client who are bringing in the new rules.



Yes, there’s a case to answer - why do some contractors vote for the Tory party?
If someone votes for a party who promise to screw you over, then they screw you over, don’t be trying to claim agents and clients are doing something illegal.

But the point is the legislation hasn't changed, has it? IR35 is still the same, it's just the responsibility for deciding it has changed from contractor to client. The determination that the client made to ask the agency to draw up an outside IR35 contract is the same as the determination that they make now, as the base IR35 rules have not changed.

I most definitely did not vote Tory, so not sure why I can't claim this.

[WTFH]

So, is it the Client who has misled the agency, or the agency that has misled the contractor. Either way, someone has been misled to get the contractor to sign the contract...

The contractor signed the contract. The contract was based on information and laws as they stood at the time. No misleading was involved.

So either they are complicit or someone else should be on the hook and not just us poor bandits!

The people who are complicit are those who support and vote for the government that are railroading the changes in. It’s not the agency or the client who are bringing in the new rules.

Which is where the legal question is valid - surely someone has been misleading other parties, and there is a case to answer?

Yes, there’s a case to answer - why do some contractors vote for the Tory party?
If someone votes for a party who promise to screw you over, then they screw you over, don’t be trying to claim agents and clients are doing something illegal.

[MHPPM]

Yup. And several times before that too.

Cheers, not the most important thing for me to get an acronym correct when my erse is making IR35 buttons

[MHPPM]

I know there's a lot of acronyms to keep track of, but you've been corrected on this several times (unless you are making a point about something different?). It makes it hard to know what you're talking about.

SDS = Status Determination Statement.
MoO = Mutuality of Obligation (I assume this is what you mean by MOE)

Yeah I was rushing, I'll try harder to get my TLA's correct.

[jamesbrown]

I did point this out in the 2nd post. Shows how much notice he's taking of the advice....

Yup. And several times before that too.

[northernladuk]

I know there's a lot of acronyms to keep track of, but you've been corrected on this several times (unless you are making a point about something different?). It makes it hard to know what you're talking about.

SDS = Status Determination Statement.
MoO = Mutuality of Obligation (I assume this is what you mean by MOE)

I did point this out in the 2nd post. Shows how much notice he's taking of the advice....

[ladymuck]

Agreed it is total Bull - asking clients to do SDA - As if they are going to be impartial - No right of appeal, other than to same client. The client MUST have approved the agency contract or at the very least agree the main points. So either they are complicit or someone else should be on the hook and not just us poor bandits!

What's an SDA?

[jamesbrown]

asking clients to do SDA

I know there's a lot of acronyms to keep track of, but you've been corrected on this several times (unless you are making a point about something different?). It makes it hard to know what you're talking about.

SDS = Status Determination Statement.
MoO = Mutuality of Obligation (I assume this is what you mean by MOE)

[MHPPM]

Which is where the legal question is valid - surely someone has been misleading other parties, and there is a case to answer?

When you take on a contract you are not going into sit with the client and run through the terms and conditions... especially in a large company you wouldn't even find the person to ask!

[sim2kuk]

Agreed it is total Bull - Same as employee for task purpose - asking clients to do SDA - As if they are going to be impartial - No right of appeal, other than to same client. The client MUST have approved the agency contract or at the very least agree the main points. So either they are complicit or someone else should be on the hook and not just us poor bandits!

Which is where the legal question is valid - surely someone has been misleading other parties, and there is a case to answer?

[MHPPM]

So, is it the Client who has misled the agency, or the agency that has misled the contractor. Either way, someone has been misled to get the contractor to sign the contract...

Agreed it is total Bull - asking clients to do SDS - As if they are going to be impartial - No right of appeal, other than to same client. The client MUST have approved the agency contract or at the very least agree the main points. So either they are complicit or someone else should be on the hook and not just us poor bandits!

[sim2kuk]

But it doesn't matter now. The client makes the determination. The agency may guide them as they know more than the client on the situation but ultimately it's down to the client.

In the past it was down to the contractor to do the correct diligence on the contract and have the changes made... so no real agent skin in the game.

This agent will only let you sign their "Outside IR35" contract...

[sim2kuk]

Red flag as in the CEST tool being flawed. I'd agree.

I don't think it's as simple as you state it there. The client must determine the role is outside, not the contractor. For key roles it's probably worth the time and effort to change the working practices and engagement methods due to the risk to the project. If the only highly skilled resources will engage IR35 then they have to change the engagement method. The other BoS guys are 10 a penny so not worth the cost. Nothing particularly wrong with that.

I think you are wrong to think some contractors will get outside, it's the roles they do, but at the end you get the same outcome they stay outside... If that makes sense.

Sorry, yes role, not contractor - typing whilst on the phone makes my mind wander - I have been (unofficially) told I am in one of those roles, but I don't really know whether to trust what is being said, or just hand in my notice. I *may* hand in my notice now, with the "security" that if the determination is made within those 2 weeks and is outside then I'll rescind the notice, or leave if they say inside (my contract and working practices are not inside so could appeal, but still). I'm still worried that even having that Inside determination will potentially have consequences down the line, even if I have looked to quit before (as it's done on the role).

Yep, CEST tool not fit for purpose, hence red flag comment, which I've told them (and sent them links to analysis on it).

[northernladuk]

There must be some skin in the game for agencies.. how can they define contractual terms and then when the client says they are not correct they just shrug their shoulders?

But it doesn't matter now. The client makes the determination. The agency may guide them as they know more than the client on the situation but ultimately it's down to the client.

In the past it was down to the contractor to do the correct diligence on the contract and have the changes made... so no real agent skin in the game.