What are the payment terms?
If they have to pay you within 10 days of you sending an invoice then they are going to struggle to evoke the clause. If it's 30 days then negotiate it.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Clause in Experis contract
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Clause in Experis contract"
Collapse
-
Flip it around and if you're the sub, you'd want paying if you've done the work.Originally posted by northernladuk View PostWhich Opting in would do.
I'd say it should be an issue due to client, agent, contractor model. It's just shifting money down the chain so can understand why they want to protect themselves. If I took on a sub I'd certainly want something similar in so I don't have to pass the money on if I didn't get it.
If I'm a paving specialist and have done a patio as part of an extension that a builder is doing, I'd want paying by the builder when I've done it. My contract is with the builder.
Leave a comment:
-
Which Opting in would do.Originally posted by LondonManc View PostIf your contract is with the agency, why should it be your issue whether they get paid or not? I'd try and get something in that trumps this where an approved/signed timesheet has been submitted; the client has therefore approved the work and you should be paid for it.
I'd say it should be an issue due to client, agent, contractor model. It's just shifting money down the chain so can understand why they want to protect themselves. If I took on a sub I'd certainly want something similar in so I don't have to pass the money on if I didn't get it.
Leave a comment:
-
If your contract is with the agency, why should it be your issue whether they get paid or not? I'd try and get something in that trumps this where an approved/signed timesheet has been submitted; the client has therefore approved the work and you should be paid for it.
Leave a comment:
-
What Kaiser says but think what the clause is there for. It's to protect the agent in the event they don't get paid and can't pass the money on. Negotiating out means they get shafted by having to pay you when they don't get their money. Good luck getting that negotiated out.
Leave a comment:
-
This for sure - if you stay Opted In the agency has to be pay regardless if they have been paied by the client, but this clause would override whether you are Opted In or Out.Originally posted by Untouchable1 View PostHi,
I've been sent a contract by Experis, with the following clause:
"Experis will not pay:
(a) for the Project Services that are not authorised, or paid for, or are disputed by the Client.
(b) for expenses incurred by the Company that are not authorised prior to them being incurred or are disputed in any way by the Client."
Is this fairly industry standard? Surely I need to negotiate this out of the contract?
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Untouchable1
Leave a comment:
-
Clause in Experis contract
Hi,
I've been sent a contract by Experis, with the following clause:
"Experis will not pay:
(a) for the Project Services that are not authorised, or paid for, or are disputed by the Client.
(b) for expenses incurred by the Company that are not authorised prior to them being incurred or are disputed in any way by the Client."
Is this fairly industry standard? Surely I need to negotiate this out of the contract?
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Untouchable1Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Business expenses: What IT contractors can and cannot claim from HMRC Jan 30 08:44
- April’s umbrella PAYE risk: how contractors’ end-clients are prepping Jan 29 05:45
- How EV tax changes of 2025-2028 add up for contractor limited company directors Jan 28 08:11
- Under the terms he was shackled by, Ray McCann’s Loan Charge Review probably is a fair resolution Jan 27 08:41
- Contractors, a £25million crackdown on rogue company directors is coming Jan 26 05:02
- How to run a contractor limited company — efficiently. Part one: software Jan 22 23:31
- Forget February as an MSC contractor seeking clarity, and maybe forget fairness altogether Jan 22 19:57
- What contractors should take from Honest Payroll Ltd’s failure Jan 21 07:05
- HMRC tax avoidance list ‘proves promoters’ nothing-to-lose mentality’ Jan 20 09:17
- Digital ID won’t be required for Right To Work, but more compulsion looms Jan 19 07:41

Leave a comment: