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

[NotAllThere]

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

Eg you can have introduction without supply.

I've asked my sister-in-law who's a contract lawyer. Certainly Egos doesn't agree with your interpretation (or safecollections). http://www.egos.co.uk/FAQ/20040930_E...troduction.pdf

[eek]

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

Eg you can have introduction without supply.

I've asked my sister-in-law who's a contract lawyer. Certainly Egos doesn't agree with your interpretation (or safecollections). http://www.egos.co.uk/FAQ/20040930_E...troduction.pdf

The way I read it is that it is that the first introduction is all important which could be as my previous post said at the moment the CV lands on the clients desk and is definitely going to be the interview rather than the first day the person starts working... The thing is that no one has ever taken the opt out regulations to a court of law you are looking at £00,000 in costs over what will always be a £0,000 sized bill.

[northernladuk]

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

Nice. Which is why they even less valid for us. I've not seen these provide any help to us today. Complete waste of time.

[eek]

Nice. Which is why they even less valid for us. I've not seen these provide any help to us today. Complete waste of time.

The opt out was really something that should never have been allowed - the few benefits it gave those who wanted to be treated as businesses were completely overriden by the abuse agencies have made of the opt out.

[NotAllThere]

Well my sister in law's opinion is that if either introduction or supply happen before the opt-out, it's invalid. She says that yes, it's not all that well phrased, but that's the straightforward interpretation.

But beware. She's working for a contractor where the agency aren't paying ( for other reasons). The sum involved is just over 10k. The agency decided to contest, lost and have now appealed. Costs to her client so far are about what he's claiming. The agency are apparently planning to go insolvent to avoid having to pay.

Don't know all the details, but you always must balance the cost against the benefit. Don't focus to much on 'winning'. The goal should be to maximise return

[northernladuk]

Well my sister in law's opinion is that if either introduction or supply happen before the opt-out, it's invalid. She says that yes, it's not all phrased, but that's the straightforward interpretation.

And I'd agree and I would be willing to bet is the situation in 99.9% of cases.

But beware. She's working for a contractor where the agency aren't paying ( for other reasons). The sum involved is just over 10k. The agency decided to contest, lost and have now appealed. Costs to her client so far are about what he's claiming. The agency are apparently planning to go insolvent to avoid having to pay.

Don't know all the details, but you always must balance the cost against the benefit. Don't focus to much on 'winning'. The goal should be to maximise return

Which is another example of how usless the legislation when trying to use it to resolve a situation.

[Andy Hallett]

I've asked my sister-in-law who's a contract lawyer. Certainly Egos doesn't agree with your interpretation (or safecollections). http://www.egos.co.uk/FAQ/20040930_E...troduction.pdf

I’ve been to court numerous times and we relied on the opt opt before supply after introduction. It is the judges that matter.

[NotAllThere]

I’ve been to court numerous times and we relied on the opt opt before supply after introduction. It is the judges that matter.

Got a precedent you'd like to cite?

[eek]

Got a precedent you'd like to cite?

Nope because there isn't one (sadly). IPSE being the bunch of incompetent muppets that they were though that the opt out was a good idea (yet could never say way beyond "business") so once S3 won a case there was no chance the £00,000 required was found to push the point.

Especially as once the £00,000 did appear the agency would give in to avoid said precedent being set.

[Andy Hallett]

Don’t get me wrong. Most opt outs are ineffective, but most hirers and legal firms didn’t understand the legislation as well as me / us.