Should I bill for days I was told not to attend?

[northernladuk]

But all are still governed by the same contract law, no?

So I ask again, why can't we (IT) do it if a lawyer can?

What has contract law got to do with it? Contract law doesn't dictate my payment terms and agreement between me and the client. My contract does and it does not say I can bill for not working. What it does say is that I will receive payment upon receipt of a signed timesheet. I didn't turn up, it didn't get signed, I didn't get paid. Not really sure what is so hard to figure out.

[jamesbrown]

Fascinating. 14 years of IR35 case law and precedent and we still have this total lack of understanding of Mutuality. The "bill-and-be-damned" crowd probably should be, but the test is an irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation. Being paid for not working is not the minimum, regardless of why you are not working.

Seriously, if you don't understand the logic, stop arguing. My ribs won't take much more.

FWIW, I don't think they're arguing about IR35. It's clearly not good from an IR35 POV, and I don't think anyone could argue to the contrary w/r to MOO.

But, IR35 aside, from a business angle, it's silly. I mean, who bills for work not done? If a tradesman billed me for work not done, I'd not only ignore them, but would never consider them for work again.

[SueEllen]

This. Exactly this.



No, it isn't. Business "good will" is taking the client for a meal/drink at the end of a (mutually beneficial) contract and shaking their hand before you wave goodbye.
This crap above is called "being a fecking doormat" and people who regularly bend over while the client them in the ass are pathetically desperate. It's about time some people grew a bloody spine.

Business goodwill isn't the same as business entertainment.

It's the value of your relationship with the client and your reputation.

Good relationships and reputations are build upon not being an a*** especially at the beginning. And as a contractor you can use the client's screw up to your advantage at a later date.

As a temp, which I was in a past life, if there was a screw up it was always the agency's fault as the hiring model is different.

Therefore if the agency screws up I would always charge them. Though as I have no fear in talking directly to the client from the beginning this rarely happens.

[SueEllen]

But, IR35 aside, from a business angle, it's silly. I mean, who bills for work not done? If a tradesman billed me for work not done, I'd not only ignore them, but would never consider them for work again.

Tradesmen do and try which is why plenty have poor reputations and there are entire TV series on them.

[billybiro]

What has contract law got to do with it? Contract law doesn't dictate my payment terms and agreement between me and the client. My contract does and it does not say I can bill for not working. What it does say is that I will receive payment upon receipt of a signed timesheet. I didn't turn up, it didn't get signed, I didn't get paid. Not really sure what is so hard to figure out.

That's fine then. I mean, contract law does apply in so far as ensuring the contract terms and conditions are met by both parties. But if anyone is in the habit of accepting contracts the terms of which are so heavily skewed in favour of the client/agent, then you're right that they've got you over a barrel, and perhaps losing one or two days pay due to the client not wanting you there would be the least of your worries.

What it does say is that I will receive payment upon receipt of a signed timesheet. I didn't turn up, it didn't get signed, I didn't get paid.

And we've had this discussion before. But what we're talking about here is when you do turn up. If this were me, I'd be expecting the client to sign that timesheet for the day even if they're sending me home. Refusal to do that would result in me not only going home for that day, but never turning up at the client's premises again. That contract would be terminated, and I'd tell the client that in no uncertain terms. I'm a contractor, contracted to perform work against a project for a fixed length of time. I am not a "temp" that they can keep on a leash at their beck and call, twiddling my fingers doing nothing until they decide they need to drag someone in to help out for a bit. Strangely enough, this brings us back to the lawyers again. You can have exactly this arrangement with a lawyer. It's called having them "on retainer" and although they may do no work for you on a certain day they still get paid for it. Very handsomely too I might add.

[jamesbrown]

It's called having them "on retainer" and although they may do no work for you on a certain day they still get paid for it. Very handsomely too I might add.

But that's based on contract, i.e. a retainer agreement, and they vary (e.g. the money may be refunded if no work is done). Like I said above, look at the contract, and it will invariably be along the lines NLUK describes. Anyway, even if you were paid for no work, to claim it would be shortsighted for all the other reasons stated above (IR35, reputation,...).

[malvolio]

Also, by your rationale (and I appreciate this is an extreme example, but a legitimate one nonetheless), a client could contract you for 6 months, then tell you on the first day you turn up on site that you're not required and to go home, only to repeat this every single day of the 6 month contract.

So you'd turn up at the client's front door only to have to immediately go home again, never actually doing any "work" for the client, but being kept on it's leash and being danced a merry dance every single day for 6 months. And you don't get to invoice for a single penny.

And you'd accept this?

Oh do stop, you're being ridiculous.

No I wouldn't - after a couple of days I'd sack the client for not fulfilling their side of the contract, the cornerstone of which is that there is an expectation that work will be provided. British law, including contract law, is wholly based on the concept of reasonableness and your scenario is plainly unreasonable.

But hey, if it makes you happy, you do it your way. Why should I care that you don't understand the principles of your trade.

[Wanderer]

To be honest no, if its just one day it kinda works in your favor from a MOO point of view if you are ever investigated for IR35 so just take the hit and enjoy the long weekend

Sounds like direction and control to me, client telling the worker when to do the work. That's an IR35 fail.

[Wanderer]

I've got a reassuringly expensive consultancy booked in to do some work. If I need to change the booking for some reason I need to give them the required notice. If I don't give the proper notice then I still have to pay them even if they can't do any work. They have expenses and they can't have people cancelling bookings willy nilly.

You lot are supposed to be running a business. Start thinking like one rather than being a bunch of bed wetters running scared of the IR35 bogeyman at every turn.

[billybiro]

Oh do stop, you're being ridiculous.

No I wouldn't - after a couple of days I'd sack the client for not fulfilling their side of the contract, the cornerstone of which is that there is an expectation that work will be provided. British law, including contract law, is wholly based on the concept of reasonableness and your scenario is plainly unreasonable.

But hey, if it makes you happy, you do it your way. Why should I care that you don't understand the principles of your trade.

Well, to be fair, I did say it was an extreme example. However....

British law, including contract law, is wholly based on the concept of reasonableness

Wrong. It's based upon precedent. And I can assure you that many legal precedents are far from being "reasonable".