• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "List of Blanket Ban Companies in respect of IR35 "Reform""

Collapse

  • edison
    replied
    Originally posted by edison View Post
    Think you're right. I had an outside IR35 gig last year at a client last year and was surprised to find how many people had been deemed inside (via a QDOS assessment.)
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Nah, you need to pull up to the door in your Ferrari Richard Prior stylie
    It was a public sector gig so more like pulling up in a Ford Fiesta.

    Leave a comment:


  • ShandyDrinker
    replied
    To be clear about the site, like everything else in life, you have to view it with the scepticism it deserves, a bit like all those stock market trading threads where we're meant to be in awe of someone who participated in a bubble.

    No, the website should be used just to get a feel of the direction of travel that potential end clients are pursuing, that is all. I know of a good few large financial services companies that are now mandating umbrella only, which is as people are saying on the site. Sure, there are plenty with an axe to grind, there are also plenty of permitractors who should probably have been on inside contracts a long time ago but have slipped through the net.

    One piece of anecdotal evidence I am seeing though is that I'm being contacted by more and more agencies about roles in the city for the MS .NET stack (& associated) dev roles which are paying £700-£800 per day via umbrella. Sure, that's for higher-end skills but it used to be that if you were getting £600+ you were doing well. I know, someone will be along in a minute to say they were on £1k+ per day outside - if so, I'll save you the bother, congratulations to you and your ego.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by edison View Post
    Think you're right. I had an outside IR35 gig last year at a client last year and was surprised to find how many people had been deemed inside (via a QDOS assessment.)
    Nah, you need to pull up to the door in your Ferrari Richard Prior stylie

    Leave a comment:


  • edison
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post
    I would also expect those contractors who are outside to keep rather quiet about it for fear of rocking their boat.
    Think you're right. I had an outside IR35 gig last year at a client last year and was surprised to find how many people had been deemed inside (via a QDOS assessment.)

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post

    (and where have you been for the last 3 years? It's a bit late to get the media stirred up about this now.)
    I smell another petition looming....

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    Sorry, to be absolutely clear, I know I dropped lucky and I don't know if it'll continue. I was just drawing into question the accuracy of the site
    Anything with user generated content has to be questioned. The same chumps that ask the daft questions on here are the same that could be updating that.

    I remember Dave C posting updates from this on linkedin and some of the comments showed a distinct lack of knowledge of how IR35, business and whatever works. I didn't bother with the site from there on in.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by Paralytic View Post
    It's not really the sites fault, but so many contractors are blinkered and think because all contractors in their team/area/department have been moved to Umbrella/PAYE means it's a company wide policy.

    I guess the site could ask people to enter which area of the company they are contracted to, which might help a little bit.
    I would also expect those contractors who are outside to keep rather quiet about it for fear of rocking their boat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paralytic
    replied
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    Sorry, to be absolutely clear, I know I dropped lucky and I don't know if it'll continue. I was just drawing into question the accuracy of the site
    It's not really the sites fault, but so many contractors are blinkered and think because all contractors in their team/area/department have been moved to Umbrella/PAYE means it's a company wide policy.

    I guess the site could ask people to enter which area of the company they are contracted to, which might help a little bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • vwdan
    replied
    Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View Post
    I have no doubt you are and congratulations to you for getting an outside contract.

    For many people, they are not going to be so lucky, given the mandated no limited company policy.

    I know of a number of people working in the public sector and in outside IR35 contracts but so what?
    Sorry, to be absolutely clear, I know I dropped lucky and I don't know if it'll continue. I was just drawing into question the accuracy of the site

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View Post
    I agree with much of what you say.

    While your comment is technically correct about being nothing to do with IR35, the reality is that it has everything to do with IR35 and the off-payroll rules.

    When you say what am I going to do about it? The answer is, after all of the lobbying of local MP, demonstrations at Westminster and generally getting involved, it became obvious that as the contracting community buried its collective head in the sand, with a maximum of the high hundreds or so turning up at the last demonstration in Feb 2020, that the government knew that even the opposition to the off-payroll rules was weak at best.

    On your final comment, what do you consider is the right problem?

    My opinion is that the tax system in general needs a complete re-wiring. We are currently seeing trial balloons about yet again attacking the self-employed so that they effectively pay the same tax as employees in "safe" jobs, so it's obviously not just the contracting sector.

    In reality, at some point there needs to be an acceptance that to have a dynamic economy, people need to be rewarded to take risks. Sadly, I believe the government is going to take an alternative approach - remove as many employment rights/benefits as possible so everyone is effectively a contractor.
    By February 2020 it was a done deal - no screaming was going to fix the issue (remember to most people contractors are simply just tax avoiding permies).

    The battle was lost when the expenses changes were made.

    Leave a comment:


  • ShandyDrinker
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    Except choosing not to use external resources via a PSC (spit) is not going to interest HMRC. So what you end up with are either a workforce of employees with no rights to any kind of employee protection and support and/or a workforce exposed to the predations of "umbrellas" who aren't anything of the sort and/or people having to pay for expenses - ErNICs, AL, pension contributions, whatever - that are not their costs.

    What you can't do is challenge a company for choosing who it does business with and under what conditions.

    As for "pedant", then if companies are not allowing contractors via limited companies, there is effectively a blanket ban is true but it is nothing to do with IR35.

    Yes of course both groups wind up on someone's payroll, the challenge is what are you going to do about it? The remedy of working in a way that is outside IR35 (as per vwdan's post above, for example) is not readily available except in what will soon be very rare circumstances.

    As an aside, there are several people setting up websites and seminars aimed at telling companies how to deal with IR35 under Section 10. They are all, in my view, wasting their time by attacking the wrong problem.
    I agree with much of what you say.

    While your comment is technically correct about being nothing to do with IR35, the reality is that it has everything to do with IR35 and the off-payroll rules.

    When you say what am I going to do about it? The answer is, after all of the lobbying of local MP, demonstrations at Westminster and generally getting involved, it became obvious that as the contracting community buried its collective head in the sand, with a maximum of the high hundreds or so turning up at the last demonstration in Feb 2020, that the government knew that even the opposition to the off-payroll rules was weak at best.

    On your final comment, what do you consider is the right problem?

    My opinion is that the tax system in general needs a complete re-wiring. We are currently seeing trial balloons about yet again attacking the self-employed so that they effectively pay the same tax as employees in "safe" jobs, so it's obviously not just the contracting sector.

    In reality, at some point there needs to be an acceptance that to have a dynamic economy, people need to be rewarded to take risks. Sadly, I believe the government is going to take an alternative approach - remove as many employment rights/benefits as possible so everyone is effectively a contractor.

    Leave a comment:


  • sludgesurfer
    replied
    I find the offpayroll website useful but the comments should clearly be taken with a pinch of salt.

    Often one person's "blanket ban" just means they've spoken to a few of their contractor pals at the same gig who've confirmed they've been classed as inside - which isn't the same as a "blanket ban".

    Some of the comments definitely smack of mollycoddled permi-tractors who got a rude awakening last year. The BP comments in particular.

    Leave a comment:


  • ShandyDrinker
    replied
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    I can tell you now I'm on an outside contract with a firm who has "blanket ban" listed on that site.
    I have no doubt you are and congratulations to you for getting an outside contract.

    For many people, they are not going to be so lucky, given the mandated no limited company policy.

    I know of a number of people working in the public sector and in outside IR35 contracts but so what?
    Last edited by ShandyDrinker; 27 January 2021, 08:05.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    And that's because a blanket ban is nothing to do with IR35 but rather companies running scared of getting involved with IR35 so taking the easy way out. Which is why they won't appear on a site labelled "Off Payroll", which is a specific piece of legislation.

    HTH...
    No, if you'd bothered to look, you'd know that the website explicitly deals with both (it has a "PSC ban" category and an "Permie roles only" category, among other things), which seems reasonable, since it all stems from the same thing. The straightforward reason that some clients are missing from the list is that they haven't yet been added. As to the accuracy of the information, who knows, since it's crowd-sourced and spans more than a year of inputs (including leading up to the delayed rollout, and some clients will inevitably have changed their approach over that period).

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View Post
    I think you're perhaps being somewhat pedantic. The end result to HMRC is the same - people on payroll, whether via an umbrella, FTC, PAYE or effectively caught under the new rules.

    While this is undoubtedly nuanced, in the eyes of many, if companies are not allowing contractors via limited companies, there is effectively a blanket ban.

    At the time of writing, google returns 378 instances of "blanket ban" on the website, per this google search.

    It's fair to say that a significant number of the larger users of contractors have all gone down the route of blanket bans. Sorry, I meant forcing people onto payroll or via umbrella companies.
    Except choosing not to use external resources via a PSC (spit) is not going to interest HMRC. So what you end up with are either a workforce of employees with no rights to any kind of employee protection and support and/or a workforce exposed to the predations of "umbrellas" who aren't anything of the sort and/or people having to pay for expenses - ErNICs, AL, pension contributions, whatever - that are not their costs.

    What you can't do is challenge a company for choosing who it does business with and under what conditions.

    As for "pedant", then if companies are not allowing contractors via limited companies, there is effectively a blanket ban is true but it is nothing to do with IR35.

    Yes of course both groups wind up on someone's payroll, the challenge is what are you going to do about it? The remedy of working in a way that is outside IR35 (as per vwdan's post above, for example) is not readily available except in what will soon be very rare circumstances.

    As an aside, there are several people setting up websites and seminars aimed at telling companies how to deal with IR35 under Section 10. They are all, in my view, wasting their time by attacking the wrong problem.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X