• 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 "Who is responsible for SDS in this chain"

Collapse

  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberspacejunky View Post

    Unfortunately that's not the case here as they have some they are keeping but inside for this specific client of theirs and they have PSCs on other clients sites too. I have been informed my contract is being terminated because I won't go inside IR35 yet it was never discussed and they have advertised the roles elsewhere so the role is still available and it also isn't because I was doing a bad job. Like I said though I am not worried it was more for the other contractors that this happened to.
    Well, in that case, B or C (most likely C) will not be compliant post April 5 as they are required to issue a timely SDS. Obviously, the risks to them are not symmetric, though (had they allowed contractors to continue working outside without an SDS).

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberspacejunky
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

    It may seem like the same thing, but the company probably has a blanket ban on contractors via PSCs. In short, they don't want contractors to go "inside IR35", they simply don't want contractors via PSCs anymore, so IR35 becomes moot and there is no need for an SDS.
    Unfortunately that's not the case here as they have some they are keeping but inside for this specific client of theirs and they have PSCs on other clients sites too. I have been informed my contract is being terminated because I won't go inside IR35 yet it was never discussed and they have advertised the roles elsewhere so the role is still available and it also isn't because I was doing a bad job. Like I said though I am not worried it was more for the other contractors that this happened to.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberspacejunky View Post
    Company B is getting rid of any contractors not willing to go inside IR35.
    It may seem like the same thing, but the company probably has a blanket ban on contractors via PSCs. In short, they don't want contractors to go "inside IR35", they simply don't want contractors via PSCs anymore, so IR35 becomes moot and there is no need for an SDS.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberspacejunky View Post

    Unfortunately Company B or C have not done the determination (or if they have it never got to the worker in the chain) but Company B is getting rid of any contractors not willing to go inside IR35. I was just trying to help other contractors who have been treated badly by the process not being followed and having the name on a list they had no idea about. I agree with you but this is the way Company B has treated the situation - very badly IMO.
    So it's a blanket ban on contractors

    Perfectly valid and the path of least risk for the company (once any hold out contractors have left).

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberspacejunky
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    If there is no determination then they are not being forced inside.
    Unfortunately Company B or C have not done the determination (or if they have it never got to the worker in the chain) but Company B is getting rid of any contractors not willing to go inside IR35. I was just trying to help other contractors who have been treated badly by the process not being followed and having the name on a list they had no idea about. I agree with you but this is the way Company B has treated the situation - very badly IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberspacejunky View Post

    If you say so. I was going to leave before April 6th anyway due to retiring just wanted to know who in the chain was responsible as there are other contractors involved and being treated in such a way they are losing there contracts due to the larger companies forcing inside IR35 without any Determination of the roles all of which would be different.
    If there is no determination then they are not being forced inside.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberspacejunky
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    Otherwise known as the shotgun to the foot process.
    If you say so. I was going to leave before April 6th anyway due to retiring just wanted to know who in the chain was responsible as there are other contractors involved and being treated in such a way they are losing there contracts due to the larger companies forcing inside IR35 without any Determination of the roles all of which would be different.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

    Yeah, but since they asked, I probably would. Better to cover your ****, even though it wouldn't constitute "fraud" to ignore their request. Overall, the best policy is probably not to ask questions at all and simply let the supply chain figure it out and carry the risk (post April, that is), but since the OP did ask questions and then contacted HMRC...
    Otherwise known as the shotgun to the foot process.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    I don't think you need to worry about anything past April anymore.
    Yeah, but since they asked, I probably would. Better to cover your ****, even though it wouldn't constitute "fraud" to ignore their request. Overall, the best policy is probably not to ask questions at all and simply let the supply chain figure it out and carry the risk (post April, that is), but since the OP did ask questions and then contacted HMRC...

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberspacejunky View Post
    I have been asked by the HMRC to report Company B as they have not taken reasonable care to provide an SDS..
    I don't think you need to worry about anything past April anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberspacejunky View Post
    Thanks for the responses after posting this I managed to get in contact with HMRC and they said it would be Company B in this chain. I should have said that all of them have over 50 employees and private sector. I have been asked by the HMRC to report Company B as they have not taken reasonable care to provide an SDS.
    Just bear in mind that HMRC are clueless when it comes to IR35 and they are probably wrong that the responsibility lies with B (not that it particularly matters from your POV). It probably lies with C but, again, it does depend on whether the supply to B is fully outsourced. A supply of stuff is potentially outsourced, whereas a supply of people is not. We can be fairly certain that HMRC cannot provide good advice on what "fully outsourced" means. If Company C knows about you-person, then the SDS should probably come from C. Does Company C know about you as a person? Are you delivering to C?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberspacejunky
    replied
    Thanks for the responses after posting this I managed to get in contact with HMRC and they said it would be Company B in this chain. I should have said that all of them have over 50 employees and private sector. I have been asked by the HMRC to report Company B as they have not taken reasonable care to provide an SDS.

    Cojak,

    My current contract does straddle the 6th April and at that point would fall under the reform and Company B were informed when the contracts went out so they would become liable from 6th April hence why they are now terminating my contract - don't know why they didn't just renew to April and then sort out a new on but they didn't want to do the SDS and done a blanket inside which the legislation is supposed to stop happening.

    It was only when I saw my role advertised that I had any idea I was going to be terminated. I chased for the SDS and never got a response so will be reporting them.

    Thanks.

    C.J.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Will also add that you mention “skills”, so the supply by B is probably not fully contracted out and the responsibility for the SDS is probably with C.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    It’s quite difficult for us to answer this one definitively, but it will be either Company B or Company C. If the supply by B is a “fully contracted out” service, then B will be responsible, otherwise C. This assumes that B and C are not “small” companies. Clear as mud?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    So company A is you.

    Agency is the fee payer

    Company B is the agency's client.

    Company C is the end customer

    So the agency is responsible for getting the decision from Company B. But Company C may have rules that determine what that decision will be (say a blanket ban on SDSs including third party suppliers).

    So all you can do is hassle the agency and say that you need the determination so that you can schedule future work.
    Last edited by eek; 26 February 2021, 08:00.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X