Reply to: Loss due to delayed contract start date.

[Mindomoo]

Can't comment on the others but I know I'm not.

I run a proper business with 'employees' (sorry I know you'll find the idea of employing others alien). I just happen to therefore have to deal with contracts from both sides of the fence and get p'd off with the prevailing attitude that agents or in other terms your customers only screw you and that you are the innocent individual.

As this post proves the guy in question has learnt a lesson that contracting is volatile and that its a harsh world out there. Obviously if he's under 30 his adult life has been under the protection of the Nanny State so he won't remember the good old days where people who took risks got rewards.

oi. some of us are under 30 and have not nor do expect to be nannied

[malvolio]

Aww come on - I'm always patronising and rude, it's what Malvolio does. Sometimes, others agree it's the appropriate response...

[Denny]

So you slag off all the other responses and then agree with them.

How odd.

What's odd is that you're incapable of seeing what I was criticising. The tone of most of these posts was patronising and rude and therefore uncalled for.

Just because the basic message about the legal situation was the same, that doens't mean I have to agree with your kick in the shin approach to giving advice.

[ASB]

I think the OP should look up "Force Majeure".

Basically loss cannot be recovered if the circumstances leading up to it were beyond the reasonable control of either party.

It seems as though this may be the case. The agent was not in a position to force the rapid turnaround of refererences etc.

I would imagine that the contract may well also have had a specific clause relating to whether these were produced in a timely fashion.

[ratewhore]

Can't help but think you're creating a load of tulip for a minimal reason. I'm on the same rate and I had to wait a couple of weeks through not fault of my own but, jesus, 2 days is feck-all. You still turned over nearly £2K for the week.

Can I assume then that you will be taking no days off during this contract, or, assuming you extend (which I would say you may be putting at risk) taking no time off until the end?

Btw, I'm not supporting the agent, they're all cnuts anyway...

[DimPrawn]

Okay, lets spin it another way.

You feel diddled out of £1200. Fair enough.

You are in demand and other offers were on the table. Good for you.

I'd bide my time there, and assuming a renewal comes up, I'd slap £20/day on my rate at renewal to cover the £1200 you lost.

That way, you get the money back by adding a surcharge (rate increase) for future work. I know the client pays this and not the agency, but the agency is never gonna cough up £1200, so this way you win in the end.

[The Lone Gunman]

I think you are doing this wrong mate.

You are in business and should expect a delay or two in some of your contracts.
Had this been an emergency call out then you would have reasonably charged a call out fee but it is a planned job.

Consider, as we often do, that you were in another business, or you were a client of another business.
If you had arranged with a builder to come and build an extension but its raining and he cant work in the rain would you expect to pay for the builder to sit around and do nothing or would you expect him to go and service another client?
Sure you are annoyed, but that is business. I usualy make a prudent phone call to make sure it is all OK for me to turn up on the day.

[malvolio]

You're all missing the point anyway. Let's get a little perspective here.

The agency and the client couldn't give a stuff about what day you actually start and finish, the contract is for an amount of money and both sides see that cost as a single entity. They haven't even thought of it as being broken down into a time period. Therefore they (and I) are clearly at a loss to understand why anyone should think offsetting it by two days is somehow robbing somebody's income. It isn't - the value of the contract is unchanged.

Also, IMHO, it's a fairly pathetic contractor who thinks this way in the first place. We're supposed to be business aware and to understand how the world works. Cry-babies should never have left permiedom if they can't cope with reality once in a while.

[Xenophon]

They probably are that's why these responses aren't worth bothering with.

I agree with your frustrations the agency cocked up and now you're paying for it. The fact that the contract has been extended the other end doesn't make it any different for you because the time has simply been delayed not extended.

I don't think your legal case is that strong though. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that to claim monies, you have to demonstrate actual material loss, not potential material loss. There's a big difference and unless you can prove that you lost out materially you have no claim. Now, once you start the contract, if it should be cut short for any good reason, like the budget runs out and you're stuck with 28 days notice to run on your contract which is perfectly legal but it ultimately means that you cannot gain from those extra couple of days at the end, you may then be able to sue for them then because you expected the contract to run to full term, but it's unlikely you would succeed at this point in time.

Sorry, you had to put up with all these other responses. I get fed up with the neo con agency set pretending to be contractors with their inevitable and boring - screw you and get a life attitude because without us they wouldn't have a job and they forget that. You deserve sympathy not abuse and you didn't get it. Sorry, I could bring you better news though. It could be worth checking with a solicitor though, although I very much doubt that you will hear what you would like to hear.

Let us know how you get on.

Get a room you two. XX

[Xenophon]

assignment value £37,800.

Is legal action for the recovery of £1200 reasonable?

No. Its insane.

As malvolio said - dry your eyes, mate.

[insight14]

Is legal action for the recovery of £1200 reasonable and what are my odds for success?

Well, you've asked the question and eight of us have told you it would be unreasonable. One person has agreed with you, but doesn't think you'll win if you go to court.

I think you have your answer.

[Lucifer Box]

No, he's right. No more of this so-called pandering to the agents on this agency board. He should shove the contract up the agent's arse, tulip on the client's board room table, set fire to the agent's wife, and sue everybody involved. They're stealing the very frozen pizza and oven chips out of his children's mouths with this outrageous "do you think you could start on Wednesday instead of Monday" behaviour. This is just the thin end of the wedge.

[boredsenseless]

They probably are
...
Sorry, you had to put up with all these other responses. I get fed up with the neo con agency set pretending to be contractors

Can't comment on the others but I know I'm not.

I run a proper business with 'employees' (sorry I know you'll find the idea of employing others alien). I just happen to therefore have to deal with contracts from both sides of the fence and get p'd off with the prevailing attitude that agents or in other terms your customers only screw you and that you are the innocent individual.

As this post proves the guy in question has learnt a lesson that contracting is volatile and that its a harsh world out there. Obviously if he's under 30 his adult life has been under the protection of the Nanny State so he won't remember the good old days where people who took risks got rewards.

[planetit]

So you slag off all the other responses and then agree with them.

How odd.

[Denny]

Are you lot a bunch of agents in disguise?

The agent screwed up plain and simple. They gave me a contract that was clearly unworkable. I have suffered a financial loss. I missed out on two days at the beginning of the contract (and it's only good luck that it wasn't any longer). To make this up at the end, I'd need to waste two days that could be spent generating revenue for my company on another contract. If I get a load of renewals it's just putting off the problem to a later date.

Why should I pay for the agent's mistake? I had a number of offers on the table when I took this contract and if I'd known the agent hadn't been able to get their side of the contract sorted, I'd have considered one of the others. So if it's possible to sue, I will. I'm sure if I'd done something to cost them £1200, they'd be taking me to court.

They probably are that's why these responses aren't worth bothering with.

I agree with your frustrations the agency cocked up and now you're paying for it. The fact that the contract has been extended the other end doesn't make it any different for you because the time has simply been delayed not extended.

I don't think your legal case is that strong though. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that to claim monies, you have to demonstrate actual material loss, not potential material loss. There's a big difference and unless you can prove that you lost out materially you have no claim. Now, once you start the contract, if it should be cut short for any good reason, like the budget runs out and you're stuck with 28 days notice to run on your contract which is perfectly legal but it ultimately means that you cannot gain from those extra couple of days at the end, you may then be able to sue for them then because you expected the contract to run to full term, but it's unlikely you would succeed at this point in time.

Sorry, you had to put up with all these other responses. I get fed up with the neo con agency set pretending to be contractors with their inevitable and boring - screw you and get a life attitude because without us they wouldn't have a job and they forget that. You deserve sympathy not abuse and you didn't get it. Sorry, I could bring you better news though. It could be worth checking with a solicitor though, although I very much doubt that you will hear what you would like to hear.

Let us know how you get on.