agency changed contract , i didnt sign, and now they are cutting it short.

[northernladuk]

The frustrating thing is that the agency only changed the contract once the client mentioned that the work was not there. It was a cheap way to get out of paying the 4 weeks notice.

You are not getting it. He cannot pay you what you do not earn. For arguments sake lets say you get a cut of the agents money. You don't work, agent doesn't get paid you don't get paid.

The only thing I can think of is that the agent will be paid the 4 week notice if you work it or not. It is hard to say without seeing the upper contract between them but even if he is there is nothing you can do about it. If he is getting paid it he is probably incorrectly thinking by cutting your notice he can keep 2 weeks of it. What he doesn't realise is that he can keep all of it if you are not working. Either way, it isn't your business, it is between client and agent. All you want to be concerned about is that if you work you get paid, if you don't you don't. It makes your situation a lot easier to understand....

Is the client going to honour the two weeks or are they going to ditch you straight away (or have they already)? They are going to have you sitting around for 2 weeks with no work to do? Is the work not there now or is going to disappear very soon? If the agent is making such a hash of this there maybe some wiggle room to fight him for the money but getting paid for doing no work isn't a good IR35 pointer.

[northernladuk]

To be honest, if agents/clients were a lot more clued up about what they can and can't do to us that we couldn't / wouldn't contend and wanted to be mercenary about it contracting would be an utter nightmare!!! Only takes one lot to take a hard stand and we could be in a lot of trouble. IMO

[TheFaQQer]

It was a cheap way to get out of paying the 4 weeks notice.

It makes no difference at all. It isn't cheap, it doesn't save them anything. If they changed it to 6 weeks notice and did the same thing, would you feel any happier?

[SueEllen]

To be honest, if agents/clients were a lot more clued up about what they can and can't do to us that we couldn't / wouldn't contend and wanted to be mercenary about it contracting would be an utter nightmare!!! Only takes one lot to take a hard stand and we could be in a lot of trouble. IMO

It wouldn't.

Agents and direct clients like a few I had would just see sense and give shorter notice periods. 4 weeks is stupid as only permies need that long.

When I got paid a notice period I got 1 week for doing nothing. When I've been on projects where we had to get rid of contractors we had to prove they were incompetent because some idiot at the client gave them a 4 week notice period and their lawyers got worried that they would be taken to court.

[northernladuk]

It wouldn't.

Agents and direct clients like a few I had would just see sense and give shorter notice periods. 4 weeks is stupid as only permies need that long.

When I got paid a notice period I got 1 week for doing nothing. When I've been on projects where we had to get rid of contractors we had to prove they were incompetent because some idiot at the client gave them a 4 week notice period and their lawyers got worried that they would be taken to court.

But as I say, if they were more clued up they would know they wouldn't have to do that and just ask them not to attend site so not get paid. Dangerous precedent though.....

[Wanderer]

The question of IR35 status is a red herring. What matters here is that unless the contract specifically states that the contract can be terminated without notice then the client/agency are bound to pay the contractor for their notice period if they terminate the contract without giving the required notice. Of course, only ricflairandy and the agency know what the contract says so legal advice and a proper contract review might be worthwhile here.

Any advice as the agency is saying its 2 weeks and if i contest it I could end up with nothing.
Sorry for the lack of punctuation and the likes, but im a bit angry

I'm not surprised that you are angry, the agency are trying to rip you off and bully you into writing off money that they rightfully owe you. Don't stand for it.

My contract was 4 weeks notice. It was a 3 month contract. I Was inormed after 2 weeks that the contract would be terminated due to lack of work. They then said they would possibly find more work and would keep me updated

Agency then sends me updated contract with 2 weeks notice asking me to sign it. I didnt.

Proceed as if you had never seen it and make them prove that you received the amendment and accepted it. They will have a very tough time proving this in court. Since they can't, the original contract notice period stands.

Now 2 weeks later, im told contract is terminated and agency are claiming 2 weeks notice because ive been working on site. I hadnt signed it for that reason. ITs a cheap and low way of getting out of paying my 4 weeks. I didnt sign it as i could see this coming a mile off.

Yep. Bill them for the full notice period and tell them you aren't taking any tulip from them. If they refuse to pay then give it to a debt collector like Safe Collections to chase for you. Don't let them dick you around.

[Earl Purple]

Presumably the "other" topic about notice periods.

And again northernladuk is saying that there is no such thing as a notice period, as the client can, at any time, say they don't have any work for you and then the agency will not have to pay you.

I will try to specify some detail of my contract in my own topic.

[BHicks]

Proceed as if you had never seen it and make them prove that you received the amendment and accepted it. They will have a very tough time proving this in court. Since they can't, the original contract notice period stands.

I don't know what the situation would be in respect of contract amendments such as this, but if this was a newly issued contract, acceptance of the T&C's can either be by express agreement (by signing the contract) or by implicit agreement (eg turning up to start the contract). In other words, if you behave as though you've accepted the contract, then you're regarded as having accepted it.

The risk with proceeding as though you never saw the amendment is that you could end up perjuring yourself if this ever does make it to court. The agency are not free to change the contract as they see fit without your agreement (unless the original contract you signed has an express provision in this regard) but when they sent out the amendment the first response should have been to reject it which doesn't appear to be what happened in this instance. If the agency had no negative feedback regarding the amendments then they could potentially rely on so called "deemed acceptance".

[northernladuk]

I don't know what the situation would be in respect of contract amendments such as this, but if this was a newly issued contract, acceptance of the T&C's can either be by express agreement (by signing the contract) or by implicit agreement (eg turning up to start the contract). In other words, if you behave as though you've accepted the contract, then you're regarded as having accepted it.

The risk with proceeding as though you never saw the amendment is that you could end up perjuring yourself if this ever does make it to court. The agency are not free to change the contract as they see fit without your agreement (unless the original contract you signed has an express provision in this regard) but when they sent out the amendment the first response should have been to reject it which doesn't appear to be what happened in this instance. If the agency had no negative feedback regarding the amendments then they could potentially rely on so called "deemed acceptance".

Agree with this. Ignoring it isn't a good idea as it can go either way and makes everything incredibly complicated if it goes legal.

[Wanderer]

The risk with proceeding as though you never saw the amendment is that you could end up perjuring yourself if this ever does make it to court. The agency are not free to change the contract as they see fit without your agreement (unless the original contract you signed has an express provision in this regard) but when they sent out the amendment the first response should have been to reject it which doesn't appear to be what happened in this instance. If the agency had no negative feedback regarding the amendments then they could potentially rely on so called "deemed acceptance".

So I write to NPower and tell them I'm halving the cost of my electricity bill and if they continue to supply me with electricity then they are accepting this amendment. Yeah, that's gonna work!

The agency have NOTHING in writing to say that the contractor accepted that variation to the contract terms and they would be laughed out of court if they ever tried to defend themselves on that basis.

The contractor does not risk perjury because they would not make false statement. Their lawyer simply points out that the burden of proof is on the agency. If they can't prove that the contractor company has both received and accepted the variation in contract terms then the agency lose.

WTF does everyone here seem to think we should just and take it when agencies try to screw us? Do you people have no business sense at all? Agencies must think it's hilarious.