Agent/Client not paying overtime

[SueEllen]

I disagree with most of the above.

If the agency and by the sound of it the client has been paying for some period of time, then it seems reasonable for you to believe that overtime is approved.

Actually it states that a number of invoices have been unpaid because they include overtime days.

I have a number of invoices unpaid for my last contract as they include overtime days.

So the customer and practice argument isn't likely to work.

It would have been a good idea to query the first unpaid invoice before carrying on working extra hours or submitting more invoices with extra hours.

[northernladuk]

Even if not, they are not in a position to try and take back monies like that. The most they can do is refuse to pay your latest invoice overtime which you may have to give up as a bad job depending on what the contract says etc. If the agency / client is refusing to pay the non-overtime days then sue. There is nothing to stop you suing both agency and client.
A lot of law is based upon what has actually happened. Most contracts can be taken to pieces.

Here we go again....

[psychocandy]

I disagree with most of the above.

If the agency and by the sound of it the client has been paying for some period of time, then it seems reasonable for you to believe that overtime is approved.

Even if not, they are not in a position to try and take back monies like that. The most they can do is refuse to pay your latest invoice overtime which you may have to give up as a bad job depending on what the contract says etc. If the agency / client is refusing to pay the non-overtime days then sue. There is nothing to stop you suing both agency and client.

A lot of law is based upon what has actually happened. Most contracts can be taken to pieces.

Sorry just re-read. so client has paid in the past but is now trying to retrospectively reclaim the overtime from current timesheet? Is that it ?**** that.

If so, I'd say take them court. Surely if they've paid in the past its an inherent agreement that it can continue? and they certainly cant 'reclaim' it from normal contracted days.

Time to get serious with them I think.

[psychocandy]

Here we go again....

Just to explain what I think NLUK means here - you have no contractual relationship with the client so you cant sue them for **** all! You're contract is with the agency - END OF.

As an example, you cant sue Kellogs if Tesco sell you a manky box of cornflakes. You're contract is with Tesco.

[northernladuk]

Just to explain what I think NLUK means here - you have no contractual relationship with the client so you cant sue them for **** all! You're contract is with the agency - END OF.

As an example, you cant sue Kellogs if Tesco sell you a manky box of cornflakes. You're contract is with Tesco.

Well kind of. Was more aimed at the fact everyone at the moment seems to jump straight on to the 'is it legal' or 'sue them' bandwaggon. This is a very rare occurance and in nearly every situation at this level it can be resolved through negotiation and a couple of letters. This mentality to immediately sue them or claim it is illegal is just pretty dumb IMO. There are many, much better option to follow before falling back on this. When someone says 'sue them' it just makes me think they are talking out of their arse and have no idea how to do business.

[TheFaQQer]

As an example, you cant sue Kellogs if Tesco sell you a manky box of cornflakes. You're contract is with Tesco.

Yes you can (assuming that Kelloggs made the box of cornflakes which are manky) - read Donoghue v Stevenson

It's the law of tort.

[TheFaQQer]

Surely if they've paid in the past its an inherent agreement that it can continue? and they certainly cant 'reclaim' it from normal contracted days.

If the previous invoices were fraudulently submitted (ie. they included a charge for time which should have been authorised and hasn't) then you'd be hard pushed to argue that this sets a precedent where any subsequent fraudulent claim should be paid.

In this case, the client is perfectly within their rights to argue for the monies paid in error should be returned to them.

[northernladuk]

If the previous invoices were fraudulently submitted (ie. they included a charge for time which should have been authorised and hasn't) then you'd be hard pushed to argue that this sets a precedent where any subsequent fraudulent claim should be paid.

In this case, the client is perfectly within their rights to argue for the monies paid in error should be returned to them.

This is what I though. Also them paying extra for time that hasn't been agreed in the contract could also been seen as discretionary so can't see it sets a precedent. Just because they decided to go above and beyond a few times doesn't mean they are tied to it surely.

[psychocandy]

This is what I though. Also them paying extra for time that hasn't been agreed in the contract could also been seen as discretionary so can't see it sets a precedent. Just because they decided to go above and beyond a few times doesn't mean they are tied to it surely.

Hmmm. But surely as long as the timesheets were accurate and correct then the client by signing them has authorised this overtime in the past? i.e. if OP sticks down he worked Saturday and client signed it then.

It is a bad idea to just go and do that with auth but if the client signs them surely they cant further down the line say it should never have been paid?

Not saying it applies to any further ot just they cant claim it back off legit billed days later on.

[SueEllen]

Hmmm. But surely as long as the timesheets were accurate and correct then the client by signing them has authorised this overtime in the past? i.e. if OP sticks down he worked Saturday and client signed it then.

The client hasn't signed any of the timesheets though.

Putting your time in an automatic system doesn't mean your working time has been approved or authorised by a human.

It is a bad idea to just go and do that with auth but if the client signs them surely they cant further down the line say it should never have been paid?

It depends on what:
1. The timesheets say - some have some legalise on them, or,
2. The wording in the contract about timesheets.