• 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 "Consultancy responsibility for determination"

Collapse

  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post

    Finally! Thank you for stepping into what otherwise might have looked like an utter freakshow. No offence to the OP's handle.

    God, it only took 10 posts but, we got there. And so IF, repeating IF, the end client was a Small Company, then, as far as the contractor is concerned it is Outside, unless s/he determines otherwise.

    What will the 'omnipresent and ever-confused' have to say next I wonder?
    It's just your wording. If the end client is a small company then the contractor makes the determination. There is no 'as far as concerned'. It's black and white. The contractor makes the determination.. I made this point to you before and using the right terminology makes all this much clearer.

    And again... it's you that is confusing the issue. Stick to the facts rather than throwing in extra words. It's been the root of our arguing. 'as far as the contractor is concerned it is Outside,' is incorrect and not required. It's not true because it could also be self determined inside. If you'd left that out it would make complete sense and you'd be correct.

    I've pointed it out throughout this, the extra wording, assumptions, whatever you want to call them have ruined what could be a good argument. If you stick to the facts and not comments like the one above you'd be on the mark.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 21 April 2021, 12:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Originally posted by SteelyDan View Post

    I've just had direct experience of this through working for a consultancy, and, yes, their (the consultancy) end client was the 'decider', so the role which was Outside before the changes came in, then went Inside, as determined by the end client, based on the new 'off-payroll' rules.
    Finally! Thank you for stepping into what otherwise might have looked like an utter freakshow. No offence to the OP's handle.

    God, it only took 10 posts but, we got there. And so IF, repeating IF, the end client was a Small Company, then, as far as the contractor is concerned it is Outside, unless s/he determines otherwise.

    What will the 'omnipresent and ever-confused' have to say next I wonder?

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelyDan
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post

    Well, maybe. Surely.

    But, can I ask, (not a statement, nor an assumption, for the excitable) consultancies are not absolved from such deciding measures? The consultancy's end client is the issue, the decider, which is why in recent times past, we had heard that small consultancies were going out of business because, in order to serve their clients' needs, the consultancies relied on being able to get contractor people in for short projects. Their business model could not sustain having these people permanently employed during down time.

    To clarify my querying stance, is this right?
    I've just had direct experience of this through working for a consultancy, and, yes, their (the consultancy) end client was the 'decider', so the role which was Outside before the changes came in, then went Inside, as determined by the end client, based on the new 'off-payroll' rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheGreenBastard
    replied
    Occam's razor: consultancy wants to fill the role, sold on the premise the inside determination is short term and the engagement will become outside IR35 (it won't).

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    My concern with that argument is the use of the word consultancy rather than agency may (significantly) increase the risk.
    Well, maybe. Surely.

    But, can I ask, (not a statement, nor an assumption, for the excitable) consultancies are not absolved from such deciding measures? The consultancy's end client is the issue, the decider, which is why in recent times past, we had heard that small consultancies were going out of business because, in order to serve their clients' needs, the consultancies relied on being able to get contractor people in for short projects. Their business model could not sustain having these people permanently employed during down time.

    To clarify my querying stance, is this right?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post




    Again, my query was (Not my statement, nor an assumption, Reread my first post - It includes the words; "while we do not know if this is the case",)

    COULD a contractor be considered Inside for a Consultancy's end client because they might have banned PSCs, and COULD then for their next client, be considered Outside because;

    (and I will shake things up for your already, overly consumed, assumptive, abstract-thinking-challenged brain to consider)

    a) the new client has done an SDS and found Outside, OR
    b) the new client is a Small company

    My concern with that argument is the use of the word consultancy rather than agency may (significantly) increase the risk.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Again, my query was (Not my statement, nor an assumption, Reread my first post - It includes the words; "while we do not know if this is the case",)

    COULD a contractor be considered Inside for a Consultancy's end client because they might have banned PSCs, and COULD then for their next client, be considered Outside because;

    a) the new client has done an SDS and found Outside, OR
    b) the new client is a Small company


    Last edited by simes; 21 April 2021, 08:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post

    Disagree. Depends on the scope of work involved.

    We need to do this really closely-controlled thing for 3 months. Then we'll deem you worthy and let you loose on a completely you-driven piece of work, right to substitute introduced, etc.

    Changes to the engagement would need to be sufficient rather just the money train/paper trail.
    Yeah fair enough. I didn't like the sound of the scenario in the OP but I can see that there could be circumstances where the status could change and I would expect new contracts and lots of supporting documentation to go with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
    It's outside all the way or inside all the way.

    Something needs to materially change in the contract and ways of working for the status to change.

    It sounds like you're a body for the consultancy to drop into different clients? It seems odd that you'd be delivering the same project to multiple clients, some who are hands on (inside) and others who are hands off (outside).

    I'd want way more details before signing anything and indemnities galore over the switch to protect myself from undue attention.
    Disagree. Depends on the scope of work involved.

    We need to do this really closely-controlled thing for 3 months. Then we'll deem you worthy and let you loose on a completely you-driven piece of work, right to substitute introduced, etc.

    Changes to the engagement would need to be sufficient rather just the money train/paper trail.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post

    How many small companies do you know that would use a consultancy that hires contractors?
    I suspect none at all.

    Although it would be interesting to know of the SDS obligation is passed to the consultancy at that point, rather than the contractor. I suspect that the consultancy would simply determine as inside to reduce their risk of this grey area.
    You're right, I don't know any at all, so I could not possibly comment on the likelihood of the scenario. I was just wondering if the scenario, in and of itself, would be correct?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post
    Another scenario; if for the first contract, the consultancy's end client is a medium to large company, and the second contract is for the new client which happens to be small, while we do not know if this is the case, would this not also be a scenario to bring about such thinking?
    How many small companies do you know that would use a consultancy that hires contractors?
    I suspect none at all.

    Although it would be interesting to know of the SDS obligation is passed to the consultancy at that point, rather than the contractor. I suspect that the consultancy would simply determine as inside to reduce their risk of this grey area.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    started a topic Consultancy responsibility for determination

    Consultancy responsibility for determination

    Another scenario; if for the first contract, the consultancy's end client is a medium to large company, and the second contract is for the new client which happens to be small, while we do not know if this is the case, would this not also be a scenario to bring about such thinking?

Working...
X