Yes, I am presuming that. It's based on the assumption that OP / wife would have noticed earlier if agency had said, "We aren't paying VAT because we don't have a VAT certificate." I suppose I'm taking OP at face value that they had no reason to know that VAT was an issue.
But this isn't demanding money "out of the blue." They've already been invoiced, and the contract will be clear that VAT is included. That invoice IS a demand, and it is presumably fully in keeping with contractual provisions. If someone is a year late, a "pay up now" demand is fully appropriate.
Nevertheless, as you've said, if the VAT certificate hasn't been provided, especially if the agency has notified them that the VAT is in dispute because of that, then yes, appropriate time must be granted. I'd still say the agency's case would be pretty weak if they've never communicated anything about disputing an amount on the invoice. It's not ok to just pay part of an invoice and never say anything about why you aren't paying the rest, and if that's what has happened here, the courts would also say that is unreasonable.
Bottom line: Your approach was based on the assumption that the agency did not have the necessary VAT proof and so their failure to pay is legitimate. My response was based on the opposite assumption, and so their failure to pay is intentional neglect. The proper response (as far as how much time to allow) is based on whichever assumption is correct.
Though I'd say the agency is still significantly in the wrong here, even if your assumption is correct, if they never communicated about the issue (and in which case I wouldn't be overly patient with them). If they did communicate about it, of course, then OP and his wife have messed up and are going to have to make full allowances, but still should be able to get their money.
But this isn't demanding money "out of the blue." They've already been invoiced, and the contract will be clear that VAT is included. That invoice IS a demand, and it is presumably fully in keeping with contractual provisions. If someone is a year late, a "pay up now" demand is fully appropriate.
Nevertheless, as you've said, if the VAT certificate hasn't been provided, especially if the agency has notified them that the VAT is in dispute because of that, then yes, appropriate time must be granted. I'd still say the agency's case would be pretty weak if they've never communicated anything about disputing an amount on the invoice. It's not ok to just pay part of an invoice and never say anything about why you aren't paying the rest, and if that's what has happened here, the courts would also say that is unreasonable.
Bottom line: Your approach was based on the assumption that the agency did not have the necessary VAT proof and so their failure to pay is legitimate. My response was based on the opposite assumption, and so their failure to pay is intentional neglect. The proper response (as far as how much time to allow) is based on whichever assumption is correct.
Though I'd say the agency is still significantly in the wrong here, even if your assumption is correct, if they never communicated about the issue (and in which case I wouldn't be overly patient with them). If they did communicate about it, of course, then OP and his wife have messed up and are going to have to make full allowances, but still should be able to get their money.
Comment