November 22nd - The death of contracting as we know it

[jamesbrown]

How much????

Probably one or more of: being ripped off; in a high-risk industry; massive policy ceiling; or dealing with North American clients.

[PTP]

Answer: In a high-risk industry

or so that's what brollies and indemnity providers think.

That's why brollies refuse to take on contractors in this industry.

[Fred Bloggs]

Exactly. So if we've got to shell out £1,800/year for indemnity that they don't, why shouldn't we get an allowance for it?

Simples. When you are an employee you do not need any liability insurances. What's more, the insurance company won't cover you nor will it pay out on a claim anyway. The insurance is for a business, not an employee. Employers have the insurance, you are entitled to see it and by law it must be posted in a place where staff can read it anyway. Though, I guess not all employers comply.

[theroyale]

Surely there needs to be a contractor group mounting a legal challenge to this? IR35 cases have gone to court and HMRC have consistently lost over the years. What has changed from a legal perspective between then and now? Nothing as far as I am aware. If we were outside then, we are outside now. Why are we leaving it to the doctors (another post on this thread) to mount this challenge, what is the plan of IT contractors beyond a pub conversation on threads like this?

[eek]

Surely there needs to be a contractor group mounting a legal challenge to this? IR35 cases have gone to court and HMRC have consistently lost over the years. What has changed from a legal perspective between then and now? Nothing as far as I am aware. If we were outside then, we are outside now. Why are we leaving it to the doctors (another post on this thread) to mount this challenge, what is the plan of IT contractors beyond a pub conversation on threads like this?

What has changed is that HMRC has got far cleverer. The public sector ir35 changes left very few angles to attack heck read the history on here and you can see how any possibilities were easily shot down.

There is probably a judicial review being requested by locum doctors. That isn’t actually aimed at HMRC but rather at the nhs where nhs improvement stated everyone must be inside, then publicly changed that statement but seemingly kept the private advice the same. So they are attacking that not the principle itself.

[mudskipper]

Surely there needs to be a contractor group mounting a legal challenge to this? IR35 cases have gone to court and HMRC have consistently lost over the years. What has changed from a legal perspective between then and now? Nothing as far as I am aware. If we were outside then, we are outside now. Why are we leaving it to the doctors (another post on this thread) to mount this challenge, what is the plan of IT contractors beyond a pub conversation on threads like this?

Contractor groups have repeatedly asked for people who believe they have a strong case to challenge the PS body's decision to come forward. People don't want to stick their head above the parapet. If anyone knows an IPSE member who believes they have such a case, and is prepared to fight it then they should contact [email protected].

[northernladuk]

Contractor groups have repeatedly asked for people who believe they have a strong case to challenge the PS body's decision to come forward. People don't want to stick their head above the parapet. If anyone knows an IPSE member who believes they have such a case, and is prepared to fight it then they should contact [email protected].

Tough call that one though. I spoke to IPSE about my last PS gig which a blanket job. I got in trouble just for raising it with my client so IPSE supporting me to take it legal wasn't going to work. IPSE didn't do anything wrong, it's just a very big ask to go that far that they can help. Fighting a case against an ex client while you're benched didn't seem that attractive.

[eek]

Tough call that one though. I spoke to IPSE about my last PS gig which a blanket job. I got in trouble just for raising it with my client so IPSE supporting me to take it legal wasn't going to work. IPSE didn't do anything wrong, it's just a very big ask to go that far that they can help. Fighting a case against an ex client while you're benched didn't seem that attractive.

+1. Assuming you are not incredibly specialised chances are a contractor is substitutable. Hence trouble makers can be easily substituted with another contractor and moved to the bench...

As I stated earlier there is a reason why fighting these changes is far harder than previous ones...

[pr1]

+1. Assuming you are not incredibly specialised chances are a contractor is substitutable. Hence trouble makers can be easily substituted with another contractor and moved to the bench...

As I stated earlier there is a reason why fighting these changes is far harder than previous ones...

fun fact, 15 of your last 20 posts end with ellipses...

[mudskipper]

Tough call that one though. I spoke to IPSE about my last PS gig which a blanket job. I got in trouble just for raising it with my client so IPSE supporting me to take it legal wasn't going to work. IPSE didn't do anything wrong, it's just a very big ask to go that far that they can help. Fighting a case against an ex client while you're benched didn't seem that attractive.

You're right, and it wasn't intended as a criticism. But that's why it's not so easy to mount a legal challenge - people who are prepared to go through that need to come forward.