Unpaid notice period

[NibblyPig]

I got called back in to do another 3 days of work at my last place, to tie up some loose ends that were stuck due to waiting for information from 3rd parties. The hiring manager said some vague stuff that they'd be paying the agency for 5 days because mumble mumble drifted off. I wonder if the agent said 1 week is the minimum contract length and is pocketing the extra 2 days.

I know exactly what they paid the agent before because someone showed me the PO. The hiring guy doesn't really understand contractors or agency shadiness and being a large company money comes from somewhere in the upper echelons via lots of forms so it feels like monopoly money to these people...

[Contreras]

I'd be really interested to know how often this happens. A little part of me would hope that if the agency can hold the client to the notice they would pass it on rather than screw the contractor over due to the T&C's between agent and contractor. A huge part of me thinks this happens a lot more than we think.

Yep. Another thing is the notice periods in your contract do not necessarily match the notice periods in the agency-client contract. I had this recently where my draft contract said 4 weeks each way, I asked for it to be reduced and we settled on 2 weeks (because, it was argued, that's what the client had asked for). Later on renewal I got to see the relevant portion of the agency-client contract and it had 1 week notice.

I really don't have a problem with agents 'taking their cut', they help find the work after all, but dishonesty like this (and other tricks) just stinks.

[czakky]

Probably the agency also managed to get paid in lieu of notice.

For an agency, enforcing a notice period makes total sense as we still bill for those weeks worked by the contractor. Billing a client for those weeks and not paying the contractor as he is not there/has not worked them...well, I'd like to think that does not happen, as that's a new low to me, and I work as an agent!

I can't even raise an invoice from my finance team without a signed time sheet, and every agency I have worked at (S3, Lorien, and where I currently reside) has been the same. I would take a guess that it's the smaller players that have the above practices - please though, if I am wrong, tell me!

I got called back in to do another 3 days of work at my last place, to tie up some loose ends that were stuck due to waiting for information from 3rd parties. The hiring manager said some vague stuff that they'd be paying the agency for 5 days because mumble mumble drifted off. I wonder if the agent said 1 week is the minimum contract length and is pocketing the extra 2 days.

Please just name and shame, as again in normal agencies this is just not possible, as invoices have to match time sheets for billing and accountancy. I refuse to believe any client is dumb enough to pay an invoice that does not match a time sheet, unless they have literally no understanding of the contract they have signed.

[SueEllen]

Yep. Another thing is the notice periods in your contract do not necessarily match the notice periods in the agency-client contract. I had this recently where my draft contract said 4 weeks each way, I asked for it to be reduced and we settled on 2 weeks (because, it was argued, that's what the client had asked for). Later on renewal I got to see the relevant portion of the agency-client contract and it had 1 week notice.

I really don't have a problem with agents 'taking their cut', they help find the work after all, but dishonesty like this (and other tricks) just stinks.

I don't know what the agent gets out of it telling you that the client has to give you 2 weeks notice rather than the 1.

In the worse case scenario you could sue them for the notice, so they should have it aligned with the upper contract to protect themselves.

Then again I suppose until some one sues and it actually goes to a hearing with a judgement we won't hear anything about it.

[Contreras]

I don't know what the agent gets out of it telling you that the client has to give you 2 weeks notice rather than the 1.

In the worse case scenario you could sue them for the notice, so they should have it aligned with the upper contract to protect themselves.

Then again I suppose until some one sues and it actually goes to a hearing with a judgement we won't hear anything about it.

You're right but what the agent gets is a contractor less inclined to walk, or just an earlier notice for the agent to find someone else. Would have been 4-weeks if I hadn't challenged it at all. I guess it also shows they were not overly worried about being sued, or perceived it as a minor risk worth taking. Perhaps a larger outfit would have checks to avoid this.

[GB9]

Things I have learned from this thread:

- there are a lot of people working within IR35
- there are a lot of people working within IR35
- there are a lot of people working within IR35

.........ad lib to fade

Are you all paying the correct tax? It's no wonder the rest of us are about to get screwed over.

[NotAllThere]

Things I have learned from this thread:

- there are a lot of people working within IR35
- there are a lot of people working within IR35
- there are a lot of people working within IR35

.........ad lib to fade

Are you all paying the correct tax? It's no wonder the rest of us are about to get screwed over.

Nonsense. Having a notice period does not mean, by itself, that you in IR35. A notice period is normal business practice within all kinds of commercial contracts to better enable cashflow planning. It certainly makes sense for an agency to have and enforce notice periods - and that, as has been discussed, can (and should) flow over to the contractor.

What is definitely the case is that not having a notice period helps strengthen your case against IR35.

In any case, in all the years I've been contracting, I've been given notice (and been paid for it) once. That was in 1997.

[GB9]

Nonsense. Having a notice period does not mean, by itself, that you in IR35. A notice period is normal business practice within all kinds of commercial contracts to better enable cashflow planning. It certainly makes sense for an agency to have and enforce notice periods - and that, as has been discussed, can (and should) flow over to the contractor.

What is definitely the case is that not having a notice period helps strengthen your case against IR35.

In any case, in all the years I've been contracting, I've been given notice (and been paid for it) once. That was in 1997.

Not so much the notice period, although I had mine removed on the advice of Qdos. I fall into the same camp as NLUK on this, i.e. you don't do anything, you don't get paid. I do agree that for anyone except PSCs, they are great. Double standards as usual.

However:

- meeting with line manager
- clocking in and out
- how long you can go to the toilet for

And those are just the ones I can remember from last night's scan.

[SueEllen]

Not so much the notice period, although I had mine removed on the advice of Qdos. I fall into the same camp as NLUK on this, i.e. you don't do anything, you don't get paid. I do agree that for anyone except PSCs, they are great. Double standards as usual.

However:

- meeting with line manager
- clocking in and out
- how long you can go to the toilet for

And those are just the ones I can remember from last night's scan.

Firstly there is no such entity legally as a PSC.

Secondly all my contracts have a clause that states I have to prove that I worked the hours/days I've stated. This is not always based on the timesheet. However this clause is not aligned with the notice period clause. The clause that is often aligned with the notice period clause is the dispute resolution clause.

Thirdly I've also had a contract in a place where I had to clock in and out of the building. I didn't have a problem with this as the building was a labyrinth and to get into the building you just showed your pass to security.


In regards to go to the toilet when I was permie I had a job where a "manager" who managed no one, would write down when everyone in his vicinity came into the office, when they left the room and when they went home. Oddly he never got promoted any higher...

[GB9]

Firstly there is no such entity legally as a PSC.

Secondly all my contracts have a clause that states I have to prove that I worked the hours/days I've stated. This is not always based on the timesheet. However this clause is not aligned with the notice period clause. The clause that is often aligned with the notice period clause is the dispute resolution clause.

Thirdly I've also had a contract in a place where I had to clock in and out of the building. I didn't have a problem with this as the building was a labyrinth and to get into the building you just showed your pass to security.


In regards to go to the toilet when I was permie I had a job where a "manager" who managed no one, would write down when everyone in his vicinity came into the office, when they left the room and when they went home. Oddly he never got promoted any higher...

Yes, we know there is no such thing as a PSC, but as the House of Lords committee and HMRC, and the Treasury are using it as a common term then standing up at a tax tribunal and claiming there is no case to answer because PSCs don't exist isn't going to get you anywhere.

Getting into a building is one thing but clocking in and out is another completely. And having someone stating that you can only have so many minutes for a wee is worse. And having to sit down with a line manager to discuss it........ I wouldn't fancy arguing that I wasn't under supervision for that one.