Last week, reading about Adrian Chiles judgement, there was one thing that I read, and thought that the report had managed a bit, so i passed it over.
It was something about Adrian Chiles being ‘part and parcel’ of his own business. Being part and parcel of an engagers business is usually an indicator of someone not being self-employed.
However, Contractor UK have published their report, and I now realise that I wasn’t misreading what they said at all. Chiles was ‘part and parcel of his own business’ which meant he was self-employed. He was ‘in-business-on-your-own-account’ – or IBOYOA.
It’s easy to imagine and understand Chiles’ case – that he is a brand in his own right and so on. But how many other self-employed sole traders or people trading through a company are selling a whole service?
When there’s an unspoken contract that you are supplying backup equipment, creating contingencies and fall-backs, doing planning and co-ordinating so that you can hit the ground running so that you can send in those bills for day-rate work…… there must be some cross over here?