Client lied on CEST to get 'Inside' determination

[Lockhouse]

They didn't "lie". You need to get that out of your head. It's a business negotiation. It's not personal. My client filled in loads of answers on my behalf, some of them wrongly. Sounds like your client has done the same thing.

Here's what I did. Subject to a blanket assessment, from Myco's email account I sent them a formal letter on company headed notepaper stating that I was appealing their opinion and listing point-by-point where I agreed and where I thought they got it wrong. Totally factually and without emotion. Apparently I was the only person to do this in the whole parent company and because of that it's being looked at seriously. The result might be the same but you've got to push back. If you get an investigation and you've not appealed then the first question HMRC will ask is, "why not?".

[northernladuk]

With all this possible appeals process going on, I do wonder what ClientCo will think about folks who dispute the SDS and kick off. Shirley, they will not take kindly to that ?

Absolutely not. I got warned off chasing this in a public sector body I was at. Might be easier in a big company who just do process with faceless emails but you can see why they won't be overly pleased.

I do think it is something to be used sparingly and carefully.

[GhostofTarbera]

With all this possible appeals process going on, I do wonder what ClientCo will think about folks who dispute the SDS and kick off. Shirley, they will not take kindly to that ?

And ban all Limited company contractors - job done


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[Hertsseasider]

With all this possible appeals process going on, I do wonder what ClientCo will think about folks who dispute the SDS and kick off. Shirley, they will not take kindly to that ?

[GhostofTarbera]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?

You are grasping at straws mate - what in real teams does not make you a permietractor?


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[Paralytic]

OP, which question did they lie and and can you prove it?

[northernladuk]

Are you sure it's deliberate and not simply due to mistakes/misunderstanding? Chucking around accusations of dishonesty will certainly resolve the issue - your contract will be immediately terminated.

This is what my money on. Something simple as they had substitute in their old contracts, they 'think' they were/are able to substitute but the CEST says not. This isn't a lie. It's the client telling them it's how they want the engagement to be, not what it was. Proper diligence has been applied and it's not a lie/illegal. The fact the OP hasn't posted any detail further raises my suspicions.

But.. we won't find out until we wring it out of the OP I guess.

[ChimpMaster]

Are you sure it's deliberate and not simply due to mistakes/misunderstanding? Chucking around accusations of dishonesty will certainly resolve the issue - your contract will be immediately terminated.

which ironically means you were outside IR35.

[NotAllThere]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?

Are you sure it's deliberate and not simply due to mistakes/misunderstanding? Chucking around accusations of dishonesty will certainly resolve the issue - your contract will be immediately terminated.

[webberg]

You can instigate the dispute process that your client is OBLIGED to have.

It may be that they have already pre determined that and will maintain their "inside" stance.

Para 4:14 of the recent "response" document does point to what you can do if you still believe that you are "outside".

Details are thin but the impression given is that you can dispute the designation via your SATR.

Whilst I can foresee a lot of technical issues there and some contractual problems and a timing matter, it will give you a route to challenge which may have the advantage of not damaging commercial relationships with your client.

[northernladuk]

It sounds like reasonable care may not have been taken.

Ask them what their appeals process is.

I'm betting its more of a case of he doesn't like it so they lied/it's illegal.

Wale will have to waitnfor the drip feed of information and we will see.

[Patrick@Intouch]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?

Firstly, the flaws of CEST are well documented and even HMRC will not stand by the results generated.

Legislation will require anyone making determinations to exercise reasonable care when doing so and to have answered questions honestly.

If the answers to those questions are based on opinion then you may struggle to convince them to change but if they are based in fact then you should challenge their assessment, providing them with evidence to the contrary.

[eek]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?

It is their viewpoint and as of April it's their viewpoint that counts.

You can appeal but I wouldn't expect things to be any different - so either accept it or leave

[ladymuck]

It sounds like reasonable care may not have been taken.

Ask them what their appeals process is.

[HappyGoLucky]

Myself and few fellow contractors recently had our 'you're inside, here are your options' letter from our common client.

They used the CEST tool and sent us copies of the form. They have lied on some of the answers to get the determination they wanted. I can prove using both terms in my contract (including lack thereof in some cases) and evidence of working practices, that they have lied.

Are they 'allowed' to purposely complete the form to twist the result?