Agency wont pay my invoice because end customer has not paid them

[eek]

The wording of the regulation is, from memory, “before introduction or supply”

Eg you can have introduction without supply.

From Opt in, opt out? What the employment agency regulations are all about and a lawyer

Are there any problems that might confront the contractor subsequent to opting in or opting out?
A: If the opt out is provided after “introduction or supply” [of the work-seeker] it is not valid. It will only apply in respect of subsequent (new) contracts. In my experience, few agencies arrange for an opt-out to be signed before an introduction to the client - so many opt outs are worthless and the Regulations apply. Often however this is a problem for the agency and of benefit to the contractor.

In my mind "before introduction or supply" means before interview (if there is an interview) or before supply (if you start before interview) - whichever comes first but as you can see there is a problem as you (with your agency hat on) assume its the latter of the 2 dates. My interpretation, btw, actually comes from a different agency who would not submit a CV without the opt out being completed.

However it's badly phrased and it's never been tested in 17 years as I suspect it's cheaper to pay the bill rather than start a full on legal battle over the exact usage and meaning of the word "or" in a legal document.

[SueEllen]

If you search much old threads on this forum through Google there are posts from posters who had to take unpaid invoices all the way to Court and got paid out on the day before the judge saw the case.

So don't be afraid of the agency fights it to the seeming end.

I've just had to do the 7 day threat in the past and have got paid out. However I have never left it as long as you plus I had other proof of doing the work apart from timesheets.

[aokanlawon]

From Opt in, opt out? What the employment agency regulations are all about and a lawyer



In my mind "before introduction or supply" means before interview (if there is an interview) or before supply (if you start before interview) - whichever comes first but as you can see there is a problem as you (with your agency hat on) assume its the latter of the 2 dates. My interpretation, btw, actually comes from a different agency who would not submit a CV without the opt out being completed.

However it's badly phrased and it's never been tested in 17 years as I suspect it's cheaper to pay the bill rather than start a full on legal battle over the exact usage and meaning of the word "or" in a legal document.

Does it matter if I didnt sign the opt-out for the extension of the contract. I only signed the opt-out for the initial contract engagement but I didnt sign it for the extension. Since the initial contract expired, it is legally safe to say that I didn't opt-out for the extension which is the period that one of my invoice was unpaid.

[eek]

Does it matter if I didnt sign the opt-out for the extension of the contract. I only signed the opt-out for the initial contract engagement but I didnt sign it for the extension. Since the initial contract expired, it is legally safe to say that I didn't opt-out for the extension which is the period that one of my invoice was unpaid.

Just ignore it for the moment - sort out chasing up the payment correctly (notice before court, court) and worry about the argument if they query things and don't pay up immediately.

[northernladuk]

From Opt in, opt out? What the employment agency regulations are all about and a lawyer



In my mind "before introduction or supply" means before interview (if there is an interview) or before supply (if you start before interview) - whichever comes first but as you can see there is a problem as you (with your agency hat on) assume its the latter of the 2 dates. My interpretation, btw, actually comes from a different agency who would not submit a CV without the opt out being completed.

However it's badly phrased and it's never been tested in 17 years as I suspect it's cheaper to pay the bill rather than start a full on legal battle over the exact usage and meaning of the word "or" in a legal document.

IMO introduction is exactly what it says, before you are introduced to the company for the first time. If you've already worked there or are already known to the client for some reason then supply kicks in. So two different statements to cover two distinct situations, one where you are not already known to the client and one where you are.

The introduced option won't work if you are going for a new gig just a few months after you left and/or the client has asked for you so would be useless. It needs some different clause which is the supply.

Sadly agents use which ever one suits them. They didn't bother doing it before they introduced you so will do it before they supply you, which, IMO is wholly wrong.

[mjcp]

IMO introduction is exactly what it says, before you are introduced to the company for the first time. If you've already worked there or are already known to the client for some reason then supply kicks in. So two different statements to cover two distinct situations, one where you are not already known to the client and one where you are.

The introduced option won't work if you are going for a new gig just a few months after you left and/or the client has asked for you so would be useless. It needs some different clause which is the supply.

Sadly agents use which ever one suits them. They didn't bother doing it before they introduced you so will do it before they supply you, which, IMO is wholly wrong.

These rules were supposed to be for Agency workers, where you might be on the books of an agency and they call you each morning, telling you where to go an work. In which case, you would be opted out before supply (as there is no introduction / interview).

M

[aokanlawon]

From Opt in, opt out? What the employment agency regulations are all about and a lawyer



In my mind "before introduction or supply" means before interview (if there is an interview) or before supply (if you start before interview) - whichever comes first but as you can see there is a problem as you (with your agency hat on) assume its the latter of the 2 dates. My interpretation, btw, actually comes from a different agency who would not submit a CV without the opt out being completed.

However it's badly phrased and it's never been tested in 17 years as I suspect it's cheaper to pay the bill rather than start a full on legal battle over the exact usage and meaning of the word "or" in a legal document.

Hi the guys from safe collections are telling me that the opt out I signed is binding hence they do not think I have a chance of winning this if I go to the claims court and I could also be sued by the agency for damages if I loose. They are saying that the clause in my contract that stipulates they "May not pay me if they do not get paid" is binding and that my opt out clause is also binding...
What do I do now, please advise. They are recommending I have a solicitor review the contract and inform me of what my chances are.
The sum we are talking about here is £13,200

[aokanlawon]

Just ignore it for the moment - sort out chasing up the payment correctly (notice before court, court) and worry about the argument if they query things and don't pay up immediately.

The guys from safe collection are suggesting I don't stand a chance of winning this through the courts as the clause in the contract seem to favor them. Should I still proceed with this?

[eek]

Hi the guys from safe collections are telling me that the opt out I signed is binding hence they do not think I have a chance of winning this if I go to the claims court and I could also be sued by the agency for damages if I loose. They are saying that the clause in my contract that stipulates they "May not pay me if they do not get paid" is binding and that my opt out clause is also binding...
What do I do now, please advise. They are recommending I have a solicitor review the contract and inform me of what my chances are.
The sum we are talking about here is £13,200

The relevant issue here is in this post here

From Opt in, opt out? What the employment agency regulations are all about and a lawyer

In my mind "before introduction or supply" means before interview (if there is an interview) or before supply (if you start before interview) - whichever comes first but as you can see there is a problem as you (with your agency hat on) assume its the latter of the 2 dates. My interpretation, btw, actually comes from a different agency who would not submit a CV without the opt out being completed.

However it's badly phrased and it's never been tested in 17 years as I suspect it's cheaper to pay the bill rather than start a full on legal battle over the exact usage and meaning of the word "or" in a legal document.

In my mind Introduction means before interview and supply can only occur if you are provided without an interview so the clause about non payment is irrelevant because you were actually working inside the Agency Regulations and not outside those regulations - Andy used to work for S3 so he has a different opinion and personally I don't think it's right.

So you will need a lawyer and one who can understand the agency regulations as that is all important.

The important facts are:

1. You were formally introduced to (insert name of client) at the interview on (date of time and interview) - and it's worth saying that it's possible to argue the introduction was done when the CV was sent over by the agency
2. the opt of the agency regulations that you signed on (date of contract)
3. so while an opt out was signed because the opt out was only requested after the contractor was introduced (to the client) that opt out is invalid which renders clause 10 of the contract as invalid.

but the question is really up to you do you want and have the money to spend (say £1-2k) on getting a lawyer involved or do you want to give up. Personally I think a letter from a lawyer (not from you) saying the above may result in them rapidly changing their mind. And Bounce Back loans are available if you need the money.

You may also want to find Dave Chaplin (ContractorCalculator) on LinkedIn as he may have an interest here - I don't know if he does but it's the sort of issue that I suspect he would find interesting and know about.

[aokanlawon]

The relevant issue here is in this post here



In my mind Introduction means before interview and supply can only occur if you are provided without an interview so the clause about non payment is irrelevant because you were actually working inside the Agency Regulations and not outside those regulations - Andy used to work for S3 so he has a different opinion and personally I don't think it's right.

So you will need a lawyer and one who can understand the agency regulations as that is all important.

The important facts are:

1. You were formally introduced to (insert name of client) at the interview on (date of time and interview) - and it's worth saying that it's possible to argue the introduction was done when the CV was sent over by the agency
2. the opt of the agency regulations that you signed on (date of contract)
3. so while an opt out was signed because the opt out was only requested after the contractor was introduced (to the client) that opt out is invalid which renders clause 10 of the contract as invalid.

but the question is really up to you do you want and have the money to spend (say £1-2k) on getting a lawyer involved or do you want to give up. Personally I think a letter from a lawyer (not from you) saying the above may result in them rapidly changing their mind. And Bounce Back loans are available if you need the money.

You may also want to find Dave Chaplin (ContractorCalculator) on LinkedIn as he may have an interest here - I don't know if he does but it's the sort of issue that I suspect he would find interesting and know about.

Thank you so much. I do not want to give up. I would rather spend the money. I will continue the legal route and will also reach out to Dave