Reply to: Agent won't pay my invoice untill I agree to pre-conditions

[SueEllen]

Still interested in what these pre-conditions were.

Probably a load of handcuff clauses and an opt-out form.

[NotAllThere]

Does the contract say "if you switch to another agency while working for the same client, then we reserve the right to withhold any payments due as compensation"?

Thought not..

Dun them to heck. Even if there was a handcuff clause, without specifically reserving the right to withhold payment, they'd be on a dodgy ground. Same as if you short pay your telephone bill because you feel your owed compensation for bad sevice.

[northernladuk]

Still interested in what these pre-conditions were.

[Ignis Fatuus]

1. If there is considered to be an implied contract, why should it necessarily be one with all of the agency's T&Cs, and none of the contractor's?

2. What has payment or non-payment of an invoice got to do with any other aspects of a possibly implied contract? Let the agency pay the invoice, and separately argue for compensation if they like.

3. If the client fired the agency, then the agency lost business by that action of the client's, not by the contractor's action in continuing to work at the client. Let the agency argue it with the client, it's nothing to do with the contractor. The contractor has not cost the agency any money.

4. Whatever the legal position (see 1, 2, 3 above), if it was the contractor who found the contract, and then used the agency as an intermediary, then the agency has a nerve acting as if it is their contract and he works for them. It is his contract and they worked for him, until they became unable to provide any more the services that he required.
Perhaps the agency owes the contractor compensation?

[Safe Collections]

As for the payment terms, if none are formally agreed then they default to 30 days by law.

Those rules have yet to be introduced in the UK, the current legislation dates back to 2002. Link However you are correct that this act provides a default credit period of 30 days in cases where no formal credit arrangement is in place.

Agreed. But if the OP had a contract it'd be a bit more clear cut. Having no written contract just makes things a lot more hassle.

As long as said contract is not heavily biased in favour of the agency! (And lets be honest many agency contracts are...)

[psychocandy]

I can't see why a restraint of trade would be implied in the event that no written contract exists. This thing cuts both ways, just because there is no written contract doesn't automatically mean the contractor is shafted. As I've said before, it's not clever to work without a contract but it doesn't mean the agency can rape you either.

In this case it is likely that an implied contract exists through "Course of Dealing". Thus, if the agency normally paid weekly in arrears then those are the payment terms. The agency didn't make the introduction in the first place so there is no "business interest" for them to protect using a restraint of trade.

As for the payment terms, if none are formally agreed then they default to 30 days by law.

Agreed. But if the OP had a contract it'd be a bit more clear cut. Having no written contract just makes things a lot more hassle.

[psychocandy]

Is this really true? There has to be some implied contract surely? Just because the OP hasn't signed a contract it doesn't mean he has absolutely no terms surely? By the same token the agent could pay him in 90 days or put any other blockers in the way using the same argument?

I for one do not believe that the OP hasn't seen a contract or agreed to something. The fact he has such a slap dash approach to his contracting attitude makes me think he hasn't done something properly without understanding.

WHS+1

Not having an indentifiable contract in the first place seems like a bad idea.

Also, surely OP must have had an inkling that original agency might be a bit upset that they were now no longer getting any income and might kick off about it? This is where a contract would have come in handy. OP would have known exactly what he could and couldn't do.

Just going off, and doing it and then being pissed off when it all goes bad, like it has, doesnt seem clever.

[Wanderer]

There has to be some implied contract surely? Just because the OP hasn't signed a contract it doesn't mean he has absolutely no terms surely? By the same token the agent could pay him in 90 days or put any other blockers in the way using the same argument?

I can't see why a restraint of trade would be implied in the event that no written contract exists. This thing cuts both ways, just because there is no written contract doesn't automatically mean the contractor is shafted. As I've said before, it's not clever to work without a contract but it doesn't mean the agency can rape you either.

In this case it is likely that an implied contract exists through "Course of Dealing". Thus, if the agency normally paid weekly in arrears then those are the payment terms. The agency didn't make the introduction in the first place so there is no "business interest" for them to protect using a restraint of trade.

As for the payment terms, if none are formally agreed then they default to 30 days by law.

[NickNick]

Handcuff clauses are there to protect the agency from losing money if you go back to the same client.
The agency was sacked by the client and the client will no longer do business with them.

Having been through this IRL I can +1 the above.

[BlasterBates]

Is this really true? There has to be some implied contract surely? Just because the OP hasn't signed a contract it doesn't mean he has absolutely no terms surely? By the same token the agent could pay him in 90 days or put any other blockers in the way using the same argument?

I for one do not believe that the OP hasn't seen a contract or agreed to something. The fact he has such a slap dash approach to his contracting attitude makes me think he hasn't done something properly without understanding.

In the absence of a written contract the contract is whatever was agreed verbally and since there was no discussion about handcuff clauses, it isn't in the contract. A handcuff clause isn't something that you can imply into a contract, it has to be explicitly stated.

[blacjac]

We could assume if the OP did squat about a contract he did squat about Opting so he will be opted in. I thought they could still hold him to an 8 week handcuff which in this case he has clearly broken so he still isn't on good ground no?

Handcuff clauses are there to protect the agency from losing money if you go back to the same client.
The agency was sacked by the client and the client will no longer do business with them.

Handcuff clauses don't apply in this situation IMO, the actions of the OP are not losing the agency any revenue. The revenue is not there to be obtained by the agency as the client wont work with them.

[blacjac]

If the client terminated the contract with the agency, then the agency is not losing any money by you continuing to work there!

They are simply trying it on and hoping you will buckle.
Refuse to speak about it except in writing.
Invoice as normal.
Follow up as normal.
Add interest and late payment charges as normal.

[northernladuk]

Its a very simple question. Were you opted in or opted out of agency regulations.

If you were opted in then your signed timesheet is all that was required to get the agency to pay you. Either way such for dunning on here, find a suitable credit control agency to chase the money and hope you hit lucky.

We could assume if the OP did squat about a contract he did squat about Opting so he will be opted in. I thought they could still hold him to an 8 week handcuff which in this case he has clearly broken so he still isn't on good ground no?

[eek]

Its a very simple question. Were you opted in or opted out of agency regulations.

If you were opted in then your signed timesheet is all that was required to get the agency to pay you. Either way such for dunning on here, find a suitable credit control agency to chase the money and hope you hit lucky.

[northernladuk]

Unless you unwittingly signed something with a handcluff clause in it, then this is a straightforward process of chasing the invoice and takiing them to court if they don't pay.

It may well be that the agency is just following through a standard procedure, so you need to send a letter first explaining there is no handcluff clause, so they have no right to withhold payment. You could try telephoning them to clarify that you don't have a contract and they are just pay rolling, that might sort it out. They may just be trying it on or it's a cock-up, either way you have to make it clear that there isn't a contract with a handcuff clause.

Is this really true? There has to be some implied contract surely? Just because the OP hasn't signed a contract it doesn't mean he has absolutely no terms surely? By the same token the agent could pay him in 90 days or put any other blockers in the way using the same argument?

I for one do not believe that the OP hasn't seen a contract or agreed to something. The fact he has such a slap dash approach to his contracting attitude makes me think he hasn't done something properly without understanding.