Agency mistake means it refuses to give money

[VectraMan]

The agency knows full well both companies are the same person

The companies are not the same "person", they're different companies. If an agent paid your money to say, Marks and Spencer, and then refused to pay you until they got the money back from Marks and Spencer, what would you say then?

If the agent had any problem with the situation they should have refused to agree to the second contract.

But the "backdating" sounds a bit dubious. If you're saying for example you worked all of Feb under the old contract, but at the end of Feb started a new contract with the start date of Feb 1st and invoiced for that month, then really the agent has made no mistake in paying the company whose contract was in force for that period, regardless of what name you said on the invoice. As PSK says, you're depriving company A of some money, which is possibly illegal, and also that means company A and its creditors are entitled to keep the money paid.

If that's the case, then maybe you need to accept it and move on. If not, then clearly the agent hasn't paid your for services rendered and none of this makes any difference.

[Wanderer]

But the "backdating" sounds a bit dubious. If you're saying for example you worked all of Feb under the old contract, but at the end of Feb started a new contract with the start date of Feb 1st and invoiced for that month, then really the agent has made no mistake in paying the company whose contract was in force for that period, regardless of what name you said on the invoice. As PSK says, you're depriving company A of some money, which is possibly illegal, and also that means company A and its creditors are entitled to keep the money paid.

Perhaps the original contract had a clause that it would be terminated immediately that the company went into liquidation. Perhaps company A is indeed in liquidation therefore the contract was cancelled and a new one was raised with the new company?

[MarillionFan]

The companies are not the same "person", they're different companies. If an agent paid your money to say, Marks and Spencer, and then refused to pay you until they got the money back from Marks and Spencer, what would you say then?

If the agent had any problem with the situation they should have refused to agree to the second contract.

But the "backdating" sounds a bit dubious. If you're saying for example you worked all of Feb under the old contract, but at the end of Feb started a new contract with the start date of Feb 1st and invoiced for that month, then really the agent has made no mistake in paying the company whose contract was in force for that period, regardless of what name you said on the invoice. As PSK says, you're depriving company A of some money, which is possibly illegal, and also that means company A and its creditors are entitled to keep the money paid.

If that's the case, then maybe you need to accept it and move on. If not, then clearly the agent hasn't paid your for services rendered and none of this makes any difference.

VM. Grow up. Don't be so bloody naive comparing to Marks & Spencers. Just because contractors operate behind a LTD company 99% of them are really disguised employees operating in a tax effective manner. This is the same director for both companies. How many times has someone on this board 'outed' an agency who has done a phoenix but with the same director in a new company and how many times have contractors rushed to heap damnation on them(look back in these forums for examples).

This is exactly the same but the shoe is on the other foot.

Same director, different companies, closing the first one to get out of paying debts, wants paying for same work in different companies, mistake made. Tough

Contractors need to stop thinking they're real businesses. They are not!

[d000hg]

To an agent, this is especially true. When did an agent last call up YourCo? You put your personal CV online and they phone you personally. As far as they are concerned (right or wrong) it is you they are dealing with, your company is just red-tape.

[Clippy]

Just because contractors operate behind a LTD company 99% of them are really disguised employees operating in a tax effective manner.

Contractors need to stop thinking they're real businesses. They are not!

Amen brother.

[VectraMan]

VM. Grow up. Don't be so bloody naive comparing to Marks & Spencers. Just because contractors operate behind a LTD company 99% of them are really disguised employees operating in a tax effective manner. This is the same director for both companies. How many times has someone on this board 'outed' an agency who has done a phoenix but with the same director in a new company and how many times have contractors rushed to heap damnation on them(look back in these forums for examples).

Indeed, and I'd tell them to grow up and not be so bloody naive. The mistake they make is thinking what they feel is morally or ethically right is also what's legally right, and the two don't always align. A different company with the same director is still a different company, otherwise what's a Ltd. company for? As I said, if the agency had a problem with dealing with a different company representing the same contractor, they could have refused to deal with that different company, just like any contractor or client is completely free to refuse to deal with a phoenix agency. The agent can't unilaterally decide to ignore their contract and pay the money to a different company, even if it is one with the same director, just because Marillion Fan says that contractors aren't real businesses.

[Wanderer]

Just because contractors operate behind a LTD company 99% of them are really disguised employees operating in a tax effective manner.

Right, that's it. You're getting an IR35 investigation on Monday now.

[d000hg]

Indeed, and I'd tell them to grow up and not be so bloody naive. The mistake they make is thinking what they feel is morally or ethically right is also what's legally right, and the two don't always align. A different company with the same director is still a different company, otherwise what's a Ltd. company for? As I said, if the agency had a problem with dealing with a different company representing the same contractor, they could have refused to deal with that different company, just like any contractor or client is completely free to refuse to deal with a phoenix agency. The agent can't unilaterally decide to ignore their contract and pay the money to a different company, even if it is one with the same director, just because Marillion Fan says that contractors aren't real businesses.

Yes but given both companies are owned by the same person, the agency paid one already and they refuse to give the money back, what would you do in their place? Presumably if we follow this to the logical conclusion, company B will sue Agent for non-payment, Agent will sue company A for keeping their money.

[VectraMan]

Presumably if we follow this to the logical conclusion, company B will sue Agent for non-payment, Agent will sue company A for keeping their money.

Indeed, exactly as if they'd mistakenly paid some other company. Company A has no right to keep the money; the agent has no right not to pay company B. Even if you ignore the law and apply Marillion Fan law, company A being insolvent isn't technically in the hands of the director anymore. Ultimately it might have to wait for the administrators to pay back the money paid in error, which means the OP really can't do anything at this stage to correct the agent's mistake. Does that mean he should lose out?

However reading some of this again, I suspect the OP hasn't told us the whole story yet.

[pmeswani]

However reading some of this again, I suspect the OP hasn't told us the whole story yet.

The one bit of information i am missing is whether OP has told the agent about the new bank details prior to the BACS run being made.

I made the mistake by telling one agent the account details for my Company Savings account rather than the main account, even though the correct details were on the invoice. I emailed them the correct details soon after. The assumption is not to rely on the agent to read the invoice for the correct details.