30 days notice to agency?

[SillyMilly]

A few years ago I was a bit annoyed about a no-notice clause for me, while the client could get rid of me on a week's notice. My accountant was quite happy with it, felt that it was IR35-friendly. My argument was that if he wanted to quit he'd give me warning so that I'd have time to organise a new accountant to take over. He used the painter/plumber argument: you wouldn't want them leaving until they'd finished the job.

Since then I've had various notice periods, from none to me, equal, or less to me than I had to give to the client. I'm not really worried how it's worded, I don't commit to a contract unless I expect to finish it and if there was a good reason why I couldn't then I can't see clients objecting. Equally on the two occasions that projects have ended early in over 20 years, both times I've been warned it might happen and then given a month's notice.

It's pretty good, getting a paid holiday at contract rates!

[The Lone Gunman]

It's pretty good, getting a paid holiday at contract rates!

AIUI that is MOO and is IR35 bang to rights.

[DodgyAgent]

That sounds like an IR35 caught contract as you had a lot of obligation to the client. You must be on a low rate to say that 3 weeks non-payment is not worth pursuing. As a business I aim to collect every penny owed (not literally) and I would not let an agency/client do that without a fight.

I don't care about contrators who are happy for clients to p1ss over them, what bothers me is the contagious effect, such behaviour has on clients if it is successful. It simply encourages them to do it.

You usually find that the contractors who have the biggest problems with notice clauses are those who tend to p*** the clients off the most. Interesting Turion how you look at your client in comparison with LG RB Notall there, SillyMilly etc!

Your language is interesting. You cearly look upon "clients" in an adversarial way. The best contractors tend to take the view that if they are any good and needed they will be kept on, and that if clients like them they will go out of their way to keep them in work.

Obviously a contractor should seek to maximise his/her situation to their own benefit, and by all means look for a soft landing clause as clients will "dump", but there is a world of difference between a contractor looking to reduce risk and a contractor with an attitude problem.

[NotAllThere]

...You must be on a low rate to say that 3 weeks non-payment is not worth pursuing. ...

No, he must be on such a high rate that he's enough to live on very comfortably, so that three weeks non-earning won't make any difference.

He's not letting go of a non-payment for work he's actually done.

By NOT persuing the client for non-payment for work not actually done he's a chance of getting considerably more work that he's ostensibly lost.

[thunderlizard]

Now this client's angle on notice period was that like any other professional you employ for a set piece of work would not normally have a notice period for example a plumber, builder etc. If you enter into a contract with a builder to build you an extension you would expect him to complete the project as agreed. If he/she then gives you 4 weeks notice half way through the build - well it just wouldn't happen.

I just wondered if any one had any thoughts on this?

yes, I agree with this kind of approach. As a contractor, what I do is handle project risk on the behalf of the client, in exchange for money. Guaranteed completion is another part of that service, that I can sell at a premium. It's part of the professional service. But if your client does want to go the 'no notice' route, they also need to give the contractor complete freedom to hire his own choice of staff or subcontractors to carry out the work. Otherwise everybody's up 5417 creek when he gets gastroenteritis.

[Another Dodgy Agent]

You usually find that the contractors who have the biggest problems with notice clauses are those who tend to p*** the clients off the most. Interesting Turion how you look at your client in comparison with LG RB Notall there, SillyMilly etc!

Your language is interesting. You cearly look upon "clients" in an adversarial way. The best contractors tend to take the view that if they are any good and needed they will be kept on, and that if clients like them they will go out of their way to keep them in work.

Obviously a contractor should seek to maximise his/her situation to their own benefit, and by all means look for a soft landing clause as clients will "dump", but there is a world of difference between a contractor looking to reduce risk and a contractor with an attitude problem.

WHS

[Another Dodgy Agent]

But if your client does want to go the 'no notice' route, they also need to give the contractor complete freedom to hire his own choice of staff or subcontractors to carry out the work. Otherwise everybody's up 5417 creek when he gets gastroenteritis.

The snag with this is when you are working on "big name corporate" site who have passes etc. and you then send your brother in-law in on your behalf.

[thunderlizard]

Why is that a snag? The contractor is still liable for the quality of his brother-in-law's work and his professional conduct. When the big-name consultants go on site, they supply a never ending procession of people. They all get passes easily enough, and I bet they aren't named personally on the contract.

[Another Dodgy Agent]

Why is that a snag? The contractor is still liable for the quality of his brother-in-law's work and his professional conduct. When the big-name consultants go on site, they supply a never ending procession of people. They all get passes easily enough, and I bet they aren't named personally on the contract.

Because like it or not, when you accept a contract assignment to work on a client site, it is YOU not a.n.other. The pass is with your photo id, it is you that is working onsite. You can quote right of substitution but in reality you go on hols and subsitute you for your brother in-law (to maintain the theme), when he turns up with no pass etc. the client is not going to allow him on site. They didn't interview your substitute, nor reference check, (credit check if financial firm) etc. consequently he isn't getting in. When you return from hols, the work has not been carried out, you cannot bill for the work and the client is (however many holiday days) behind.

[thunderlizard]

Well in that case you are expecting your contractor to fulfil his obligation, but you are tying his hands behind his back.

If you are bringing in additional staff, obviously you sort out the practicalities in advance, and work alongside them for a few days to hand things over. Security passes are easy. Either you arrange it in advance, in which case the client's security people are waiting with the camera for him on day 1; or else you arrange a day pass for him.

Again, when one of the big name consultancies sends one of their new fresh-faced grads on site, it's the same story. All that happens is that the lead consultant tells the client that Johnny Comelately will be coming in the following morning, and can you please sort out a desk for him? The client hasn't interviewed him. The client hasn't reference checked them etc. But he still gets in. And the work still gets done and it's not a problem.