Contract offer withdrawn

[LucidDementia]

Utter bollocks. If the PD who was sacked for their role in this episode, didnt adhere to the client's recruitment policy of contractors or wasnt authorised to hire (which is usually HR's remit), the company can hardly be held responsible for a rogue employee and an 'engagement' that wasnt authorised or completed within their policy.

True enough, however if ClientCo accepted OP on site knowingly and accepted his services knowingly they can....
To play devil's advocate we don't know why the PD was sacked - for all we know he was nicking laptops and selling them on eBay. I have seen this happen.

-EDIT- The aftermath - I didn't actually watch the crime being committed. That would be naughty. -EDIT-

[SueEllen]

Utter bollocks. If the PD who was sacked for their role in this episode, didnt adhere to the client's recruitment policy of contractors or wasnt authorised to hire (which is usually HR's remit), the company can hardly be held responsible for a rogue employee and an 'engagement' that wasnt authorised or completed within their policy.

<mod snip>

The OP was allowed on-site.

There is normally more than one person involved in site security.

[LucidDementia]

True, but it will come down to what can be evidenced, not what is "normal"

[Yonmons]

Its a great big bubbling pan of cack ! and it looks like its cost a couple of people their contract roles.
This is my 4th gig with my present clientco, and I was approached by them asking if I was looking for work, me accepting I was next contacted by the agency WHERE UPON, I had to go through the whole vetting procedure yet again, answering the same old questions (despite my protest that I had done this for you last time) Then I started on their date 2 weeks later.
If my current boss said to me start tomorrow (he wouldn`t BTW) I would have smelled a rat and said I dont start until my contract arrives.

Lessons should be learned by all parties concerned. All that can be offered on this occasion I am afraid is a healthy dose of tea, and sympathy.

[Chuck]

The OP was allowed on site and presumably given a desk, telephone, PC etc.

Unless this is a small company, which I doubt given the title "Programme Director", then multiple chains of people would be involved in providing this. I doubt that it is within the authority of the PD alone to authorise all this without supporting signoff from other officers of the client.

I'd say that by these actions the client has acknowledged and accepted the contract.

Get some proper legal advice on it though.

[psychocandy]

Utter bollocks. If the PD who was sacked for their role in this episode, didnt adhere to the client's recruitment policy of contractors or wasnt authorised to hire (which is usually HR's remit), the company can hardly be held responsible for a rogue employee and an 'engagement' that wasnt authorised or completed within their policy.

<mod snip>

But by that rationale you should never ever trust anything that someone agree on behalf of a company.

Next signed contract I get signed by director of agency. Are you suggesting I get funny just in case this fella has gone rogue?

[psychocandy]

I'm with the OP mostly. OK fair enough he could have done things better.

BUT end of the day, he got an email from what he assumed was an authorised representative of the company. Then he worked and was allowed on site for 11 days. Perfectly reasonable to assume all was sorted and above board.

If then it turns out that someone screwed up then I cant see how its his fault?

If it was me, I'd be putting in small claim.

[MrMarkyMark]

Well imo you didnt have a 'valid' contract as you didnt go through the client's screening process as they have said.

Well, you certainly wouldn't have run into the issue, as you never "bend over" and do silly things like screening process's, do you?

[Willapp]

One thing I've not seen mentioned yet is what evidence the OP has that he worked for 11 days? Does he have timesheets signed by an approved person? Even if the client does admit he was engaged legitimately, they could dispute how much work was done and therefore what money is owed?

I also tend to side with the OP on this for reasons already stated by some other posters: it's reasonable to assume someone with a 'director' title has authority to bind the company to agreements; the fact he'd been there before seems a reasonable argument towards accepting the work on short notice (in fact I'd like to think any reasonable judge would see that he was trying to be accommodating to the client rather than naive in his actions); plus the fact he was allowed on site for 11 days to do the work.

I also disagree that 11 days isn't worth fighting for - as the OP has already clarified, this amounts to a decent chunk of money so why should he just walk away?

[ASB]

There are some words on apparent authority here. Even if the person who agreed was not authorised it may still be binding.

Agents acting without authority: when is the principal bound? | The In-House Lawyer
Unauthorised employee signed suply contract on behalf of company | The Law Forum