Proudly supported by inniAccounts. The IPSE award winning accountants.
Agency

Optamor

End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
Assessed inside IR35 without consultation. Employers deductions taken from personal income unlawfully.
Posted anonymously
9 months ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
CEST SDS with incorrect answers gives an inside result. No consultation, answers don't match contract or working practises. Some answers are only subtly different to reality but that's good enough for CEST to flip you inside! Some are being asked if they want to go permie orto stay on inside IR35 via brolly or PAYE. Regarding pay, Optamor say "As a result of statutory costs associated with the change of engagement from a PSC Contractor to a PAYE engagement, the overall cost to the Client for each engagement will increase, and it is unlikely that the Client will be able to increase your rate to match your current take home pay. Therefore, your PAYE pay rate will be calculated based on your current PSC pay rate with the following deductions as required by law Employers National Insurance, Apprenticeship Levy, employers pension contribution and accrued holiday pay. This will be your gross rate. In addition, Optamor will be required to deduct PAYE Tax, Employee’s NI and employee pension contributions on the PAYE pay rate, giving you your net take home pay" I thought employers NI was to be added on top, not deducted? I won't stay on inside IR35 on principle so my work go to the US.
Posted anonymously
9 months ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
Assessed Inside IR35. Assessments were conducted on a role basis. No contact made with contractor during assessment. Assessments done with CEST and questions answered incorrectly, even simple questions about contract starting after another finishing despite this being first contract since moving from another client. Lots of issues here which need to be seriously sorted prior to new rollout date in 2021. Being assessed as inside IR35 incorrectly is one thing, but incorrectly answering questions on CEST is a serious issue. Appealed determination but appeal has been thrown out as I left to go elsewhere.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
SDS with Inside determination by CEST arrived with utterly inaccurate assessment of working practises & contract terms. Unsurprising given there was no consultation whatsoever, just a series of emails promising a decision further an further into the future. All contractors on the project received SDS by email at the same time, with the same answers, suggesting role based blanket. My contract ends shortly but extension was 99% certain as the project is deeply troubled. Offer of umbrella options to become a worker without rights. I choose to cease work immediately. I'm not a slave.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
Not sure about the previous comment, no real factual evidence backing the statement or determinations. Where will contractors go , well there are lots of options open, some will try and get contracts closer to home, some will leave and remain limited, some will leave to obtain more interesting work and look at longevity in the contracts, others will inevitably go umbrella lets hope the right mix stay. Please note it will definitely be the end of the flexible workforce.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
IR35 fairly assessed
Roles have been assessed in line with HMRC guidelines. Where are most of the people complaining going to go. Most competitors are announcing inside. The options available seem fair and the HR team are doing their best to support
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
To continue to be effective, organisations should be careful to avoid making blanket decisions in haste. Under the wording of the IR35 reforms, organisations should be carrying out individual IR35 status of their current and future contractor workforce, I'm out of here...
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Outside IR35 banned
Blanket determination based on job role, we were informed of determination a day before the justification evidence was seemingly undertaken. Very poor communication from Optamor with only options being there PAYE or through there chosen Umbrella’s.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Outside IR35 banned
Division: Ampthill
PSC blanket ban no real assessment. I disagree with today’s comment on fair assessment, this is just fake news. I am not a bot, I cannot get the whole story down. Blanket SDS assessments done on job roles, no consultation littered with errors.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Outside IR35 banned
sham assessments, no intention of a fair outcome
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
Division: Optamor
To be fair, there appears to be some kind of, ‘retrospective assessment’, with which they claim is evidenced but this is open to be suggested as orchestrated. A court will decide if this was an attempt to retrospectively hide an illegal Lockheed decision. My evidence could contribute to any decision. By all accounts, that I’ve seen so far, they are not complying with the HMRC law when comparing their ‘assessments on CEST’ with the contracts that they have signed up to with the PSCs. The contracts that we are legally obliged to, do not represent their assessments on the role’s IR35 status assessments. Law is too clear to not dis-notice these discrepancies, and I’d suggest the law firm that they used should be pointed to look at this. Lockheed could have made this their opportunity to do the right thing. I do expect that they will do the right thing in the due course.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
IR35 fairly assessed
They have used a law firm to come to the results are assessing each role accurately.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
So after being told we where inside on the 10th Feb we now have received our CEST Status, which was dated 11th Feb the day after being told ? secondly it appears that the time stamp for certain job tiles coincide for all contractors with the same job title, not only that people with different job titles totally different jobs have the exactly the same answers within the CEST tool, this defines a blanket decision as our role-based assessments do not consider the details of every working arrangement and therefore lack ‘reasonable care’. In addition without directly assessing the individual, it’s impossible to evaluate the factors that are solely applicable to them – the most important being whether they are in business in their own right.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
Believe this to be role based assessment, that as failed to take into account the full factual matrix required to assess the individual’s status accurately. Without directly assessing the individual, it’s impossible to evaluate the factors that are solely applicable to them – the most important being whether they are in business in their own right.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
Blanket Assessment, same text in letter as others, not addressed to to company or by name, no mention of specific job role, no mention of what tool used for assessment not factual information backing up the assessment, the list goes on. Moral low and contractors leaving.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Outside IR35 banned
Absolutely unfair blatant blanket assessment something that HMRC said that should not happen. No tool specified in order to carry out the assessment. All letters exactly the same no name or address of company, company No. etc ?? just a standard template allowed for ease of communication. The fact we have to give them our decision whether we want to continue under PAYE in a couple of weeks time is downright disgusting have taken this long to come to a blanket decision.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Outside IR35 banned
I received the same generic assessment sent to all contractors, saying I am inside IR35, but not explaining why or giving any form of assessment or score. There was also no information on an appeal process. Very disappointing and I suspect this will cause a lot of contractors to move and find alternative contracts.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Unfair IR35 assessment
Division: Ampthill
Blanket inside determinations dressed up as personal determination. No explanation of how the “third party legal company” arrived at the suspiciously similar determinations for all contractor/consultant staff.
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
Outside IR35 banned
Email I got from Optamor (I was not engaged in the Status Determination process): “ Lockheed Martin, with our support, have spent a considerable amount of time and consideration to ensure that any assessments conducted have the correct result. This has included the use of an external Law firm to come to the assessment results and we are all confident that the results are accurate. The Status Determination for your role has been established as: Inside IR35 This means that with effect from 5th April 2020, you will no longer be able to engage with us through a PSC.”
Posted anonymously
2 years ago
End client
Lockheed Martin
IR35 fairly assessed
late decision. expected assessments in march
Posted anonymously
2 years ago

We're on a mission to promote transparency and the fair treatment of contractors, consultants and freelancers.

This site is community-driven, so we can't verify every comment and opinion shared here. Please apply your own rational judgement, and pay attention to our site rules.

This service is provided by OffPayroll.org.uk Ltd, company 12411724, registered in England and Wales.
You'll find us at 1 Derwent Business Centre, Clarke Street, Derby, DE1 2BU. You can contact us at hello@offpayroll.co.uk.
Company logos provided by Clearbit and are the trademarked by their respective owners.