Reply to: Agency problems trying to recover alleged overpaymets on approved timesheets.

[kal]

The customer signed off 45 hour per week timesheets and the invoices were raised to match those.

Then they are surely taking the p!ss.

[Dylan]

I'm not for one minute suggesting the OP is guilty but if you started billing for travel time & overtime you could easily hit 15hrs a week.

The customer signed off 45 hour per week timesheets and the invoices were raised to match those.

[speling bee]

Time to put in a subject access request under the DPA methinks.

[Pondlife]

834 hours over 14 month is 60 hours a month so roughly 15 hours a week.

I'm not for one minute suggesting the OP is guilty but if you started billing for travel time & overtime you could easily hit 15hrs a week.

[psychocandy]

BUT between then and now the number has grown from about 120 hours (at £60/hr = £7200) which was the figure used when i was removed from my position to a number in the region of £50000 if i break that down with my hourly rate at the time (£50000/£60 = 834 hours) which is almost 20 weeks.

834 hours over 14 month is 60 hours a month so roughly 15 hours a week. So are they claiming you billed for 45 and turned up 30?

Seems strange that someone wouldnt notice at the time if that were true. Trying it on I reckon. Would be obvious if you were doing 3 hours/day less than you said you were.

[psychocandy]

So are they moaning that you fiddled the timesheets or moaning that you did 45 hours when you shouldnt have?

If its the first one then I can't see how they can authorise them and then moan about it later.

If its the second one, same applies I guess. But what does contract say? I'd say most clients would moan if they were expecting to pay for 40 hours and got a bill for 45 without knowing about it. Is it possible that someone oked it for months and now they realised they;re not happy.

Interesting to see on what basis after all this time they've got proof if they do reckon you were on the fiddle. So in truth was it all kosher from your point of view?

[psychocandy]

I worked in one place where they received a new regional IT director, he was paranoid about over-claiming and accused half the department of skiving based on system login times. There was one permie project manager who was accused publicly of skiving by filling in his internal timesheet for a full day when he wasn't logged in once, a quick and very public complaint to HR along with a set of customer minutes showing him in an all-day workshop on a customer site stopped the director whining. It's all too easy for people to get "evidence" that you've not done what you claim but they're often easy to show as stupid, unfortunately two years after the event means getting that proof is nearly impossible.

I had a PM like that once. Had a 'thing' about people working from home. Went nuts once when he couldnt get hold of someone on their mobile who was working from home. Escalated it right up to try and get person into trouble. Turned out they were on phone to customer all day. Nice one.

In permie days used to work with a guy who used to wait until manager had gone and then say 'so what time you putting on your timesheet fellas'? This was in the days of flexi time. In the end manager had an idea but asked us to make a statement to HR. Sod that.

Told manager just leave one night early, come back 30 mins later to see whos still there, then see what X puts on his timesheet for that day. Easy peasy. But manager wouldnt do this so nothing ever happened.

[Pondlife]

I was a LTD company contractor who was working for a client in a role via a recruitment agency. I worked there full time for 14 months in which time i worked an average of 45 hours a week, sometimes more when i was working aborad for them etc, timesheets were submitted accordingly, approved by the client and and then paid on time via invoicing sent to the agency etc.

What did the contract state were the agreed working hours a week? And it does explicitly state that expenses will be reimbursed?

[BlasterBates]

Agree with above you are being accused of fraud, if they're not responsive then PC Plod can go round and talk to the PM who was signing your time sheets as to how it took so long for him to notice that you'd overbooked 834 hours. Once PC Plod appears on the scene it might focus the minds a bit more on the implications of "false accusations". PM's might go silent when talking to the accounts dept but it will be a different matter when talking to PC Plod down at the station.


I would run this through a soliciter.

The way I see it they have to provide proof for the entire 834 hours, and how are they going to do this?

Signed timeheets and renewed contracts will put siginificant burden of proof on the client. They are probably going to need "false" statements from the PM. Let the Soliciter challenge them.

[Dylan]

They approved your timesheets. That is all the proof you need, they have approved the time that was entered, they can't change their mind years later. If their process was lacking that isn't your issue - if they didn't perform due diligence then tough.

If you've invoiced for time not approved they might have a case, but you've simply submitted invoices based on the time they said you worked?

[craig1]

example.

Access pass showed you were on site for 30 hours and claimed for 45 ?

or System logon times shown the same.?

What is the basis for there claims.? did you work from home.?

I worked in one place where they received a new regional IT director, he was paranoid about over-claiming and accused half the department of skiving based on system login times. There was one permie project manager who was accused publicly of skiving by filling in his internal timesheet for a full day when he wasn't logged in once, a quick and very public complaint to HR along with a set of customer minutes showing him in an all-day workshop on a customer site stopped the director whining. It's all too easy for people to get "evidence" that you've not done what you claim but they're often easy to show as stupid, unfortunately two years after the event means getting that proof is nearly impossible.

[tarbera]

Can you think of no reason why client would claim this.?

example.

Access pass showed you were on site for 30 hours and claimed for 45 ?

or System logon times shown the same.?

What is the basis for there claims.? did you work from home.?

[Platypus]

Great advice from craig.

IIRC it's a criminal offence to accuse someone of a criminal offence such as fraud.

get legal on them.

[lone ranger]

Ok, many thanks Craig. I will take that onboard.

Regards.

[craig1]

Can I suggest an alternative approach? Go get yourself an hour or two of a small business/self-employed specialist lawyer's time and ask them specific questions about these subjects:

- how protected you are by limited liability now the company is struck off. He'll need to see your contract and any letters or emails that have gone between you and the agency on the subject as you may have strayed into personal liability somewhere accidentally, or even had it sneakily added by the agency and you've signed or agreed without noticing.
- is there a way you can go on the offensive by sending them a solicitor's cease and desist letter on behalf of a private individual being harrassed over a now defunct company issue? While he's at it, get him to demand that they cease and desist defaming you to anyone as this is directly impeding your career and income.

It'll probably cost you £250 or so but will probably be worth every penny.

Don't sit back and let them drive it as you'll be persistently on the back foot, responding to them. Attack is the best defence.

Also, don't ignore it, it'll probably not go away now that they're still going on about it and seem to want to escalate. That said, don't discuss, verbally or in writing, the debt they say you have at all beyond very, very bland "Your contract was with a now defunct company, I have no debt to you". Certainly do not show any sign of compromise in admitting any liability, debt or that you even have anything to do with your old company's responsibilities or you get into some very iffy territory around contract law and third parties.