Reply to: Contract ended - 'not the right skills'

[ravedave]

The main reason for going contracting is to make more money, sounds like you're just giving it away! You missed out on another role, you are now out of pocket and out of work, that's why you have a 2 week notice period to avoid such losses. I'd issue a claim against them via the small claims court, it won't cost you much, but cost them more to defend so they may just pay you. The contract seems pretty clear to me, you went for interviews, matched up against the original job spec requirements etc, the client can change their mind if they wish but not for free. So if you've already worked from 4th - 15th October? then you've already worked 2 weeks so in total they owe you 4 weeks money and I would want paying, every last penny of it. The other advice on here makes me think these guys aren't real companies but ir35 avoidance fronts cos they don't seem to talk like any business people I've known, where you keep your eye on the money primarily or you go bust. You need to toughen up or get eaten alive especially in the current climate!

I don't see how this could possibly act as a black mark against you. Can you imagine Mr Agency telling others "Hey you know Mr X, we got him a contact role, then after he started the client dumped him and he wanted paying for 2 weeks notice just like it states in the legally binding and signed contract we had with him! OUTRAGE!".

I didn't understand this bit in OP? Maybe I've misunderstood other aspects but a contract is a contract!
* Started 4th month
* Ended 15th month

Fact is you will NEVER work for that company OR that agency ever again, I certainly wouldn't and besides if any agent can find you work they couldn't care tuppence about whether they like you or not, if they can make money from you that goes out of the window. ! I say Sue, you say Peggy!

[Wanderer]

Hmmmm, if the shoe was on the other foot, I would suggest that the client would expect some compensation for a sudden depature... Just seems very unfair, the contractor (me in this case) is a soft target and now quite out of pocket.

Agreed. I still don't understand what the notice period is good for. It seems that the client's (strictly the agent's because the contract is with the agent not the client) notice period to the contractor company (once again, it's your company that makes the contract not you personally) means nothing, but we hear lots of stories of agencies trying to withhold payment from the contractor company if they terminate without notice.

It's a crappy grey area, it seems.

I conclude, following on from everyone's comments, that I need to take this on the chin, clarify further during selection stage that the role can be performed and should things change (which obviously they can) to prepare suitably.

You've made the right decision in my opinion. Don't dwell on previous failed business relationships or they will consume you. My advice is learn from it, chin up and move on which is exactly what you are doing so you're on the right track. You'll look back on this of a client in a few years and laugh.

Good luck.

[Fred Bloggs]

All good comments and views. I think the element that I suffer with most is the consequence of these type of events. I'm a comparative noob to contracting and working hard to gain my next role. But I need some decent experience under my belt and some longevity so I can protect myself financially. What I don't need, are clients changing their minds so soon after starting. I missed out on another role 2 days before this one ended!

I conclude, following on from everyone's comments, that I need to take this on the chin, clarify further during selection stage that the role can be performed and should things change (which obviously they can) to prepare suitably.

I could still do with the cash owed though - can anyone lend me a fiver?

That's a decent take on affairs, learn and move on. Good luck.

[Ignis Fatuus]

As several people have pointed out, contractors are easy to get rid of, and that is one reason why they are paid more. I'll emphasise that: if you are not paid more, to cover downsides like that, then you are being underpaid. That BTW is one reason why the rule-of-thumb equivalence between rate and salary is not simple arithmetic.

Second point. If it was the agent who was responsible for putting you in to a requirement that you didn't have the required skills for, and then he washed his hands of the whole situation, then keep that in mind next time you're looking for an agent.

[tgardener]

You're take is quite wrong and I have a long, solid record of delivery exclusively with blue chip clients in the process and O&G industries. My opinion has nothing to do with poor attitude what so ever, and has a lot to do with establishing the ground rules for a mutually beneficial business relationship at the outset. Expecting some kind of pay off when a business situation changes as the OP appears to expect is far more the hall mark of a poor contractor in my opinion. But then again, opinions are 2 a penny anyway, I'll let the OP decide for his/her self.

All good comments and views. I think the element that I suffer with most is the consequence of these type of events. I'm a comparative noob to contracting and working hard to gain my next role. But I need some decent experience under my belt and some longevity so I can protect myself financially. What I don't need, are clients changing their minds so soon after starting. I missed out on another role 2 days before this one ended!

I conclude, following on from everyone's comments, that I need to take this on the chin, clarify further during selection stage that the role can be performed and should things change (which obviously they can) to prepare suitably.

I could still do with the cash owed though - can anyone lend me a fiver?

[BlasterBates]

You need to think before taking legal action, you're not going to work for the client you took to court again, and the next client won't know and will just do the same again anyway if they're that way inclined. If you do "stand up" you don't end up like a gun slinger with an industry wide reputation that no-one is going to cross, so you make your decision on the basis of whether it's worth the money or not. In this case it probably isn't, the legal costs would be quite high, and of course the time and hassle. You're better off spending your time on the blower getting a new contract.

You're take is quite wrong and I have a long, solid record of delivery exclusively with blue chip clients in the process and O&G industries. My opinion has nothing to do with poor attitude what so ever, and has a lot to do with establishing the ground rules for a mutually beneficial business relationship at the outset. Expecting some kind of pay off when a business situation changes as the OP appears to expect is far more the hall mark of a poor contractor in my opinion. But then again, opinions are 2 a penny anyway, I'll let the OP decide for his/her self.

Whatever, that's not how it comes across. Why go into a contract if to let yourself get screwed over I say.......

[Fred Bloggs]

I think this attitude is quite poor. If you are in business for yourself and someone goes into a contract with you with a view of pulling the plug if it doesn't work out, why bother contracting ? you are doomed to get stuffed over more often than not. Sometimes you have to stand up for your principles and enforce the contract. Lots of situations where the contract is cut short ultimtely reflects on you in one way or another and your CV looks s**T because you have lots of small bits of work on it.....its situations you want to avoid in my view.

You're take is quite wrong and I have a long, solid record of delivery exclusively with blue chip clients in the process and O&G industries. My opinion has nothing to do with poor attitude what so ever, and has a lot to do with establishing the ground rules for a mutually beneficial business relationship at the outset. Expecting some kind of pay off when a business situation changes as the OP appears to expect is far more the hall mark of a poor contractor in my opinion. But then again, opinions are 2 a penny anyway, I'll let the OP decide for his/her self.

Part of the deal really this. It happens, you just need to move along and get the next contract. Myself, I'd never get woud up about something like this. As far as I'm concerned, zero notice on both sides is the best arrangement, then if something doesn't work out on either side it's discussed openly and you both move on with minimal baggage.

I think this attitude is quite poor. If you are in business for yourself and someone goes into a contract with you with a view of pulling the plug if it doesn't work out, why bother contracting ? you are doomed to get stuffed over more often than not. Sometimes you have to stand up for your principles and enforce the contract. Lots of situations where the contract is cut short ultimtely reflects on you in one way or another and your CV looks s**T because you have lots of small bits of work on it.....its situations you want to avoid in my view.

[Old Greg]

In my limited experience, contracts are often contradictory. There may be a notice period, but it may also state that if no work is available at any time no payment is due. So you can effectively be given notice to end the contract but no work is available during that period, so no money is due.

It is unfair in that it's a sh1tty way to do business, but let them do that. Best thing you can do is hold a life-long grudge. Don't ever buy anything from them (if their products / services are available) and bad mouth them to everyone you know.

[Fred Bloggs]

Part of the deal really this. It happens, you just need to move along and get the next contract. Myself, I'd never get woud up about something like this. As far as I'm concerned, zero notice on both sides is the best arrangement, then if something doesn't work out on either side it's discussed openly and you both move on with minimal baggage.

[VectraMan]

Really? Even if there is (possibly) a clause that states that the client is not obligated to provide any work? That comments stinks of IR35 IMO.

It's annoying how everything gets reduced to an argument about IR35. We don't know that he's in or out of IR35, and he may even be using an umbrella.

I'd be happy to sign a contract where they didn't have to give me any notice, but if it does say there's a notice period (my current one says 1 week), then what's the point of it being there if it doesn't mean you either work the week, or get compensated?

I think if you pursue it you'll ultimately get the money. But don't expect them to pay because you ask.

[pmeswani]

A notice period should be paid for even if you dont work there

Really? Even if there is (possibly) a clause that states that the client is not obligated to provide any work? That comments stinks of IR35 IMO.

[RichardCranium]

Hmmmm, if the shoe was on the other foot, I would suggest that the client would expect some compensation for a sudden departure...

Just seems very unfair, the contractor (me in this case) is a soft target and now quite out of pocket.

I agree. It is unfair. And that risk is built into the rate we charge.

There are many, many crap things about contracting. But many benefits too. A permie job has stability but it is the same old thing, year in, year out. Contracting is unpredictable and has its downs, but it has ups too.

In the grand scheme of things, an employer took a risk on a contractor, it didn't work out and they only lost 2 weeks' cost ... you got that money. Sounds like a small win to me.

Now go and do it again, and again, and again until you retire.

Agree with all. Quite an unfair situation.

Two things here to learn.

First thing.

When you draft up your contract, always put in the Schedule the 'Role, Responsibilities and Skills' and, if you can, the specific 'Project Work' to be performed. Then, its impossible (pretty much) for the client to argue that you don't have the skills because the agency - who actually sign your contract - have a legal duty of care to ensure the client agrees that you do.

Second thing.

If you ever have a client pull you aside and say you don't have the skills, always ask for the agency to be brought into the meeting and for a mutual discussion to be held looking at the role interviewed for, the skills in your CV, what was discussed at interview and where they don't believe the match is.

If you really want the role, then fight for it by stating that you are prepared to fulfill and 'complete' the contract, even if that means you have to develop skills to fill any perceived gaps. You are entitled to that.


I had a similar thing happen a few years ago. ClientCo got it wrong in setting up a project that didn't happen, so they tried to ditch me 4 weeks into a 6 month contract. But I was wise to this and knew they had other work I could ramp up on and so I called a meeting with the MD of the firm (it was fairly small) and said I was prepared to enforce the contract and complete it. I had the weekend to prepare my game plan so sort of ambushed them with that one. But the point was that I wanted the skills and knew I could deliver and so fought the good fight. I got to the six months and left.

Avoiding issues like yours is all about planning for the worst and hoping for the best. The stronger you make your side of the contract the less likely it is for ClientCo, and thus the agency (who seemed to have copped out in your case - so typical) to just walk away unscathed. You just have to be prepared to be smarter contract wise and you'll be respected for it. Added to that, putting such stuff in your contract makes sure the Agency (and ClientCo) have 'understood' the ramifications of getting it wrong and changing their minds. And plenty do try believe me.....