Working practices

[Zero Liability]

Hmmm. I do wonder how many clients when asked this will think:-

1) WTF is this?
2) I cant be arsed with all this.

Perhaps the fact that they have to sign it makes some jittery, if they don't understand the nature of the document. I remember reading a while ago it can simply be accepted through email instead - is this true?

[northernladuk]

Perhaps the fact that they have to sign it makes some jittery, if they don't understand the nature of the document. I remember reading a while ago it can simply be accepted through email instead - is this true?

I find that hard to believe. The document is just a confirmation of the situation, not a legal document. As long as you have evidence the right person has confirmed it then you have your evidence. The key here is getting the right person.

[psychocandy]

I find that hard to believe. The document is just a confirmation of the situation, not a legal document. As long as you have evidence the right person has confirmed it then you have your evidence. The key here is getting the right person.

And finding someone WGAS about it.

[malvolio]

I find that hard to believe. The document is just a confirmation of the situation, not a legal document. As long as you have evidence the right person has confirmed it then you have your evidence. The key here is getting the right person.

Not strictly true. A company would not be too happy if a line manager signed a document that subverted or contradicted a signed contract, hence the usual reluctance to do so.

The real problem is the possible disconnect between what the agency has contracted with you and whatever Ts&Cs they have sold their client. Some are very good about it, some - rather too many - are completely out of order. I've refused a gig before now because of a poor agency contract, then found it re-advertised elsewhere with a sensible-looking contract only to discover (in time) that the second agency are only feeding the first, meaning their views on D&C and RoS are totally unsupportable.

If we could guarantee the chain of contracts was entirely consistent, a CoA letter would be unnecessary.

[northernladuk]

Not strictly true. A company would not be too happy if a line manager signed a document that subverted or contradicted a signed contract, hence the usual reluctance to do so.

Agreed hence my comment re finding the right person but yes I see your point. If the company is happy enough to do by mail it would suffice. That's a big if I agree.

The real problem is the possible disconnect between what the agency has contracted with you and whatever Ts&Cs they have sold their client. Some are very good about it, some - rather too many - are completely out of order. I've refused a gig before now because of a poor agency contract, then found it re-advertised elsewhere with a sensible-looking contract only to discover (in time) that the second agency are only feeding the first, meaning their views on D&C and RoS are totally unsupportable.

If we could guarantee the chain of contracts was entirely consistent, a CoA letter would be unnecessary.

Im not sure I agree with this. Surely the CoA is there to prove that the working arrangements meet the contractual terms so bridging the gap between the two. Even if you had this chain you could argue practices may not match so the CoA will always be a useful document to any defense regardless of contract chain? For example, I am sure there are many chains which are aligned around say RoS but we know most clients attitude to this on the ground. A CoA may go somewhere to proving its not a sham?