Free legal advice - worth what it costs I guess.
Here's a scenario.
Contractor A begins a new gig on 3rd December 2007.
It's a beauty of a contract - between Contractor A's Ltd Co direct to a consultancy. The first 12 days services per month are guaranteed on a generous retainer, with any further days required by the client to be charged at a bonzer daily rate, up to a limit of 20 billable days in the month. In other words, in an optimal month Contractor A's LTD can bill for the retainer + 8 days, in a thin month, just the retainer.
Before the end of the first month in the gig - Contractor A gets smashed off the road by a useless French trucker on the M1. Contractor A is very lucky his ar$e survived the crash, but less so when it comes to his choice of insurance company! The accident causes Contractor A to miss 2 days of his lovely new contract. Because this is December, with Christmas in the way, there are not enough working days left in the month. Contractor A is obliged to pro-rate the 12-day retainer, only charging for 10 days due to having been unfit for work at no fault of the client.
Fast forward 18 months. Well maybe not "fast". Contractor A has finally got back 95% of the value of the written off vehicle, reimbursement for the hire car etc.
Unfortunately, the concept of retainers and lost earnings for a contractor has completely blown the mind of the loss adjuster - maybe understandably, maybe not.
The amount being claimed is 1200 for the 2 days; he is offering Contractor A an ultimatum - in return for 50% of the lost billable amount he wants to see "3 years worth of P60s or any other document confirming tax paid in the last 3 years" (ie well before the crash). Contractor A ignored the mention of the P60s etc in a written response, and miraculously the offer was increased by another 100 quid.
What is a reasonable response to this? Contractor A's LTD lost 1200 quid through no fault of its own, and Contractor A is being offered 700. A friendly solicitor has said that a claim through Moneyclaim would not even pause for thought that the contract was in the Ltd's name and not Contractor A's name.
If anyone is still awake after all that - can they pick the bones out of Contractor A's admittedly tetchy response? I will of course forward the responses to Contractor A.
"Why, if the contract began in December 2007, would taxation records from before that date be relevant? Why not later ones? Why taxation records when you have a legal document defining the material loss of earnings before tax is declared and paid? Do you intend to withhold tax on the settlement amount and pay it to the Inland Revenue on my behalf? At what rate? You have not explained the procedure you are intending to follow.
Finally, as I have not proposed sending you my confidential tax returns – why increase your offer of an extra-judicial settlement? You are not throwing me a bone – I have demonstrated the loss sustained and I expect the claim to be settled in full"
Here's a scenario.
Contractor A begins a new gig on 3rd December 2007.
It's a beauty of a contract - between Contractor A's Ltd Co direct to a consultancy. The first 12 days services per month are guaranteed on a generous retainer, with any further days required by the client to be charged at a bonzer daily rate, up to a limit of 20 billable days in the month. In other words, in an optimal month Contractor A's LTD can bill for the retainer + 8 days, in a thin month, just the retainer.
Before the end of the first month in the gig - Contractor A gets smashed off the road by a useless French trucker on the M1. Contractor A is very lucky his ar$e survived the crash, but less so when it comes to his choice of insurance company! The accident causes Contractor A to miss 2 days of his lovely new contract. Because this is December, with Christmas in the way, there are not enough working days left in the month. Contractor A is obliged to pro-rate the 12-day retainer, only charging for 10 days due to having been unfit for work at no fault of the client.
Fast forward 18 months. Well maybe not "fast". Contractor A has finally got back 95% of the value of the written off vehicle, reimbursement for the hire car etc.
Unfortunately, the concept of retainers and lost earnings for a contractor has completely blown the mind of the loss adjuster - maybe understandably, maybe not.
The amount being claimed is 1200 for the 2 days; he is offering Contractor A an ultimatum - in return for 50% of the lost billable amount he wants to see "3 years worth of P60s or any other document confirming tax paid in the last 3 years" (ie well before the crash). Contractor A ignored the mention of the P60s etc in a written response, and miraculously the offer was increased by another 100 quid.
What is a reasonable response to this? Contractor A's LTD lost 1200 quid through no fault of its own, and Contractor A is being offered 700. A friendly solicitor has said that a claim through Moneyclaim would not even pause for thought that the contract was in the Ltd's name and not Contractor A's name.
If anyone is still awake after all that - can they pick the bones out of Contractor A's admittedly tetchy response? I will of course forward the responses to Contractor A.
"Why, if the contract began in December 2007, would taxation records from before that date be relevant? Why not later ones? Why taxation records when you have a legal document defining the material loss of earnings before tax is declared and paid? Do you intend to withhold tax on the settlement amount and pay it to the Inland Revenue on my behalf? At what rate? You have not explained the procedure you are intending to follow.
Finally, as I have not proposed sending you my confidential tax returns – why increase your offer of an extra-judicial settlement? You are not throwing me a bone – I have demonstrated the loss sustained and I expect the claim to be settled in full"
Comment