Notice period Vs Timesheet

[ashokcontractor]

Hi,

I am a newbie.Thanks for reading this.

I was issued a contract for 6 months by an agency with a 28 days mutual notice written by either way..

Now i received an email from the agency with just 13 days notice...I spoke to them to pay the notice but they refused..

The reason given by the agency is...they have a clause in the Contract which says ' Timesheet should be signed by the client for payment '.

But i was asked to leave the client premises at the end of 13 days..so technically its not possible for me to get signed...

Now we have 2 clauses..one NOTICE PERIOD and another TIMESHEET NEED TO BE SIGNED BY CLIENT FOR PAYMENT...

Please share your thoughts..

Thanks.

[SueEllen]

1. Get your contract checked for contradicting clauses before you sign it that way situations like this will not arise.

2. What you are stating doesn't make any sense and we can only help you if we see your entire contract (which we don't want to see as we aren't lawyers who like discussing contract law in our spare time).

3. Generally you only get paid for what you work. So if you have only worked 13 days that's what you get paid for.

4. If you are unhappy with what I've stated take your contract to a solicitor and see what they say.

[northernladuk]

You get paid for the work you do regardless of notice period. If you don't work you don't get paid. End of.

But i was asked to leave the client premises at the end of 13 days..so technically its not possible for me to get signed...

You sure about this? Doesn't sound right to me at all. The client manager will still approve the months time sheet as normal, you will have just booked 13 days to it that's all. Can't see you not being there making any difference.

[GillsMan]

Notice periods are generally irrelevant, because a good IR35 friendly contract should have the MOO clause written in such a way that it essentially says the client doesn't have to offer you work, and you don't have to accept any offers of work. This is good IR35 practice. So, a client can essentially say "here's your 28 days notice, oh and we don't have any work for you starting tomorrow". Since you only get paid for work you carry out, you essentially end up with 0 days notice.

That's why I've never cared a jot what notice period I have in my contract. I've vaguely preferred a none-too-restrictive notice period on my side, should I wish to leave the contract, but I've never handed my notice in on a contract, so that's never been a huge issue for me.

It's a slight pain in the ass what's happened to you, but it is part and parcel of contracting. Invoice for the 13 days you did, and concentrate on looking for a new contract.

[psychocandy]

All well and good this no work no pay thing but I still think this is poor practice by the agency/client. If you really don't want to be stuck to the notice period then dont put one in the contract.

To use this no work no timesheet thing is wrong IMHO. I've got a real thing about the notice period for both sides. Both sides agree when the contract is signed so trying to get out of it with a technicality like this is bang out of order. So is moaning if one sides PROPERLY invokes the notice period. If you dont want one side to give notice then negotiate it out of the contract.

This timesheet thing is just beyond though. Imagine it. Contractor gives four weeks notice then says but I'm not turning up after two weeks - client would go nuts quite rightly.

[northernladuk]

All well and good this no work no pay thing but I still think this is poor practice by the agency/client. If you really don't want to be stuck to the notice period then dont put one in the contract.

But you still have to have notice in to terminate the contract. Terminating the contract and paying someone for work are two different things. The latter is set out clearly in the contract. No work, no pay. You still have to have notice to end the contract. What happens while that notice is in play is irrelevant. We are on T&M so has no bearing on notice of contract termination at all.

To use this no work no timesheet thing is wrong IMHO. I've got a real thing about the notice period for both sides. Both sides agree when the contract is signed so trying to get out of it with a technicality like this is bang out of order. So is moaning if one sides PROPERLY invokes the notice period. If you dont want one side to give notice then negotiate it out of the contract.

Wrong again, see comment above. We are on Time and Materials. We get paid for the time we do. End of. Notice period on termination of contract could be 10 years. If we don't do any work then no money comes in. That is clearly indicated in the contract.

This timesheet thing is just beyond though. Imagine it. Contractor gives four weeks notice then says but I'm not turning up after two weeks - client would go nuts quite rightly.

Things are not equal in a client/supplier relationship. You can't just keep banging on about if they did that to us. It just doesn't work like that.

[SueEllen]

All well and good this no work no pay thing but I still think this is poor practice by the agency/client. If you really don't want to be stuck to the notice period then dont put one in the contract.

To use this no work no timesheet thing is wrong IMHO. I've got a real thing about the notice period for both sides. Both sides agree when the contract is signed so trying to get out of it with a technicality like this is bang out of order. So is moaning if one sides PROPERLY invokes the notice period. If you dont want one side to give notice then negotiate it out of the contract.

It's up to you to negotiate your contract so the notice period is a penalty clause where the party giving the notice has to pay up. The majority agents and most clients won't put up with it.

This timesheet thing is just beyond though. Imagine it. Contractor gives four weeks notice then says but I'm not turning up after two weeks - client would go nuts quite rightly.

The latter has happened to some clients I've been with. They have been able to do SFA about it......

[billybiro]

Notice periods are generally irrelevant, because a good IR35 friendly contract should have the MOO clause written in such a way that it essentially says the client doesn't have to offer you work, and you don't have to accept any offers of work. This is good IR35 practice. So, a client can essentially say "here's your 28 days notice, oh and we don't have any work for you starting tomorrow". Since you only get paid for work you carry out, you essentially end up with 0 days notice.

That's why I've never cared a jot what notice period I have in my contract. I've vaguely preferred a none-too-restrictive notice period on my side, should I wish to leave the contract, but I've never handed my notice in on a contract, so that's never been a huge issue for me.

It's a slight pain in the ass what's happened to you, but it is part and parcel of contracting. Invoice for the 13 days you did, and concentrate on looking for a new contract.

I concur regarding your notice period effectively being 0 days when the client decides there's no work for you to do under MOO rules, however, I'm curious as to why you might prefer a contract with a non-too-restrictive notice period on your side?

Surely, the exact same MOO would allow you to refuse any/all work offered by the client, even if they expect you to be working a 28 day notice period to them?

Either way, it's absolutely correct that notice periods are entirely irrelevant given appropriate MOO clauses in your contract, and this goes for both parties.

[northernladuk]

I concur regarding your notice period effectively being 0 days when the client decides there's no work for you to do under MOO rules, however, I'm curious as to why you might prefer a contract with a non-too-restrictive notice period on your side?

Surely, the exact same MOO would allow you to refuse any/all work offered by the client, even if they expect you to be working a 28 day notice period to them?

Either way, it's absolutely correct that notice periods are entirely irrelevant given appropriate MOO clauses in your contract, and this goes for both parties.

We have had lots of discussion about MoO and there is still some debate about it but I believe MoO relates to the obligation of the client giving you work AFTER the current contract has ended. I don't believe MoO relates to work during the current contract. That is just a typical supply/demand situation with T&M workers. If the client doesn't have work for you to do you just don't get paid. That's not really MoO in my mind.

Remember as well a supplier/client relationship isn't the same on both sides, there are different expectations from both parties. Being a supplier you are always at the mercy of the client and his purse strings. The expectation is that while he has work you get paid. When he has no work you can't get paid. While he has work to do and will be paying he will be expecting you to deliver. I know it sounds harsh but a client saying sorry we've no work is completely different to you just saying bugger you I can't be arsed to do any more work for you. I know contractors get upset when the client does this but that is because they don't understand the relationship or take it personally.

Not quite as black and white as all that but still gives you an idea of the situation IMO.

[Paddy]

Hi,

I am a newbie.Thanks for reading this.

I was issued a contract for 6 months by an agency with a 28 days mutual notice written by either way..

Now i received an email from the agency with just 13 days notice...I spoke to them to pay the notice but they refused..

The reason given by the agency is...they have a clause in the Contract which says ' Timesheet should be signed by the client for payment '.

But i was asked to leave the client premises at the end of 13 days..so technically its not possible for me to get signed...

Now we have 2 clauses..one NOTICE PERIOD and another TIMESHEET NEED TO BE SIGNED BY CLIENT FOR PAYMENT...

Please share your thoughts..

Thanks.

The time sheet clause is irrelevant. I once sued jointly an agent and client for a similar reason. They delayed payment and then refused saying they needed a timesheet. The Judge said, "The claimant has done the work, therefore the defendants must pay up; simple" They lost and they had to pay costs on top.

You should treat yourself as a business and if you are a limited company, you have an obligation to do so. Would a public company let a client get away with breach of contract? No No No!

On another contract; the project was pulled and they gave 14 days notice instead of 28. The agent said the have the best lawyers and a recent case proved they could do just that. however, that case was brought about by two numpty contractors taking the agent to an employment tribunal FFS! I faxed a bill for a month in advance and threatened them with a County Court summons if they do not pay up. They paid up next day. Talking and faxing the agent only took me a couple of hours, it was well worth it

I find that many contractors just let themselves get walked over.