unauthorised timesheets & payment dispute

[matlevy]

ok... so after running round in circles trying to find what my situation is..... the umbrella company are sending me a copy of my terms with them from what i understand they have explained to me.

i have asked them (the umbrella company) and they have told me that i am a 'temporary employee' according to their information therefore this leaves me a few options. do i:

file a grievence with them as an employee and then approach an employment tribuneral bearing giant have told me that they cannot pay me until they have received funds from the agency and i think it is likely there will be something in the contract with them and the agency relating to this.

or, file a claim against giant hoping they might respond to it more promptly and pressure the agency.

can i take the claim directly against the agency.... highly unlikely i think cause i dont have a contract with the agency, that is between them (giant) and the agency (premier it) and not me. the main thing thats totally unhelpfull at the moment is that the agency are effictively washing their hands of the whole situation (to protect their own interests).

[MarillionFan]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Answer the question.Why did the client not sign your timesheets?

You're not giving the full answer here. I suspect the client thought you're work was sh1t. Am I right? Or is there another reason?

MF in 'Why do you guys always ask the complex questions first' Mode???

[bobhope]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Answer the question.Why did the client not sign your timesheets?

You're not giving the full answer here. I suspect the client thought you're work was sh1t. Am I right? Or is there another reason?

MF in 'Why do you guys always ask the complex questions first' Mode???

Not necessarily - maybe he did something else to annoy the client (like punch them?)

[tim123]

file a grievence with them as an employee and then approach an employment tribuneral bearing giant have told me that they cannot pay me until they have received funds from the agency and i think it is likely there will be something in the contract with them and the agency relating to this.

or, file a claim against giant hoping they might respond to it more promptly and pressure the agency.

can i take the claim directly against the agency.... highly unlikely i think cause i dont have a contract with the agency, that is between them (giant) and the agency (premier it) and not me. the main thing thats totally unhelpfull at the moment is that the agency are effictively washing their hands of the whole situation (to protect their own interests).

I think that you will have to file a claim against both jointly. The law that protects you here is one which makes the agency liable. The law is quite capable of 'seeing though' the umbrella company and passing the liability for the problem back to the agents, it is they who found you the work, it is they who you had the relationship with as a "work seeker", it is therefore they who have the liability for non payment. The fact that having obtained the work you used a brolly to facilitate being 'paid', will be seen by the courts exactly for what it is, a convenience for the agency (especially if the brolly was 'selected' by the agency as you suggest).

Having said this, you really do need to get someone with legal experience to persue this for you. A (recognised) solicitors letter will have a much swifter response than anything you can manage yourself.

I would give
http://www.egos.co.uk/
a call.

Finally as to the point about "why was the timesheet signed", then it is true to say that the client may have decided that then work was not up to scratch. But the courts will expect the client to warn somebody sooner if this is the reason. Simply accepting a month's work and refusing to pay for it, is not going to win them the judges sympathy.

tim

[boredsenseless]

I think that you will have to file a claim against both jointly. The law that protects you here is one which makes the agency liable. The law is quite capable of 'seeing though' the umbrella company and passing the liability for the problem back to the agents, it is they who found you the work, it is they who you had the relationship with as a "work seeker", it is therefore they who have the liability for non payment. The fact that having obtained the work you used a brolly to facilitate being 'paid', will be seen by the courts exactly for what it is, a convenience for the agency (especially if the brolly was 'selected' by the agency as you suggest).

Having said this, you really do need to get someone with legal experience to persue this for you. A (recognised) solicitors letter will have a much swifter response than anything you can manage yourself.

I would give
http://www.egos.co.uk/
a call.

Finally as to the point about "why was the timesheet signed", then it is true to say that the client may have decided that then work was not up to scratch. But the courts will expect the client to warn somebody sooner if this is the reason. Simply accepting a month's work and refusing to pay for it, is not going to win them the judges sympathy.

tim

Listen to tim he's speaking sense

[Denny]

Simply accepting a month's work and refusing to pay for it, is not going to win them the judges sympathy.

tim

How come it would then if you take on a role with four weeks notice each way, get the client to sign off timesheet and EB pays you for the work you've already done (say fiveweeks worth - past trial period) and then the client dumps you without serving the said 4 weeks notice on the grounds that your work wasn't never up to scratch, or some other implausible excuse over you conduct, leading to instant termination without notice.

If logic had anything to do with the law then this couldn't happen either as it makes no sense. If the work was really faulty why sign the timesheet for those weeks but then terminate without notice, on the spurious grounds that they shouldn't have signed the previous ones. If the situation was logical only two things should have happened - signed timesheets for time on site and full notice given if they decide to terminate early, or else no signed timesheets at all and only during the trial period, and instant termination once the trial period was up.

Yet both can and does happen.

[tim123]

How come it would then if you take on a role with four weeks notice each way, get the client to sign off timesheet and EB pays you for the work you've already done (say fiveweeks worth - past trial period) and then the client dumps you without serving the said 4 weeks notice on the grounds that your work wasn't never up to scratch, or some other implausible excuse over you conduct, leading to instant termination without notice.


Yet both can and does happen.

The difference is going to be the possibility of mitigation.

You cannot mitigate a loss that has already occurred. You can mitigate a loss that has yet to happen and you can be judged to have not tried hard enough to do so.

tim