Following what was thought to be harmless Employer Compliance Review, Mark received a list of numerous questions regarding working practices. This initial visit in early March 2004 was handled under the PCG’s original ‘Route35’ by the previous representatives, however the case was transferred to Lawspeed in May 2004.
Following a fact-finding review of the evidence to be able to properly represent the facts of the case Lawspeed wrote to the Revenue. This was met by a request from the Revenue for permission to contact the client direct. Lawspeed requested documented input from the client as a statement setting out the actual working practices and relationship between the parties. Having obtained this strong documented evidence in October a response was received from the Revenue concluding that the engagement will not be subject to the “intermediaries” legislation.
This decision was based on a number of vital factors including the genuine project-basis to the work, the absence of substantive direction and control by the client, a right to substitute subject only to reasonable criteria relating to the skills of the replacement, there was no restriction on providing services to other clients and Mark' company would be responsible for rectifying any mistakes at its own cost.
Mark was delighted and said: "That is very good news indeed! I am very grateful, and as you can imagine the relief was like a huge weight off my mind. Many thanks again, to you and James May for your help and advice in bring this matter to a successful conclusion” |