Reply to: Legal help needed

[northernladuk]

So did you get any timesheet at all signed? Do we assume you did three weeks and got that signed then worked two more and they you started playing notice tennis? You should have at least one signed in a five week period shouldn't you?

[rd409]

Thank you everyone for the feedback.
With regards, to the full story, unfortunately the only things that are omitted out are project specific details in which case, I might just add the name of the client and agency as well. I understand, I may not be able to please everyone, and hence I am okay with client serving notice to terminate the contract early. I have had to terminate contract early from my end as well, when I realise I may not fit in the team. This is all part of the game.
The reason, I don't buy into the work was worth only 3 weeks, and not 5 weeks is because I was only told this after serving me a notice of termination, and the timesheet was rejected after that. It is not acceptable to tell the contractor after 5 weeks of putting in work, that it is not appropriate. The contract does provide the client a recourse of remedy free of cost, which they did not even discuss. I don't mind making things upto an acceptable standard which are mutually agreed. Given the circumstances the things have gone, it seems that the only way to please the client is to let them have the free work, which on principle I cannot agree.
I will have to go down the dunning route, it seems.

[northernladuk]

From my reading of it the options are 3 weeks money without any real hassle or 5 weeks money if you push things and the agency caves in.

And I really can't see the latter occurring because in the previous case like this we saw that even Safe Collections didn't see much change of success.

I would suggest as I've continually done that the OP takes the 3 weeks being offered and chalks it down to experience.

This.

/thread

[Lance]

I have had it happen to me once in 20 years, they paid up after I sent the letter before action

I agree this will not always happen but it costs nothing to send and it at least helps focus minds within the business who are not paying you

letter after invoice?
Or just letter?
And what do you think dunning is? (hint: it's sending letters).
But you still need the invoice raised otherwise what are you asking them for?

[JohnM]

sigh....

Send an invoice. The start dunning after late payment has been reached.
You can't just go straight to court. The judge will throw your vexatious claim out.

I have had it happen to me once in 20 years, they paid up after I sent the letter before action

I agree this will not always happen but it costs nothing to send and it at least helps focus minds within the business who are not paying you

[Lance]

Totally agree

Send them a letter before action and lodge a claim with the small claims court

sigh....

Send an invoice. The start dunning after late payment has been reached.
You can't just go straight to court. The judge will throw your vexatious claim out.

[JohnM]

Does stagger me that people think it is acceptable for clients to wriggle out of paying invoices.

Not really my field but go through the Dunning process. Good luck.

Totally agree

Send them a letter before action and lodge a claim with the small claims court

[eek]

That's the theory yes. Thing is, opt in/outs are done so badly due to neither the contractor nor agency understand it so the chances of him proving it to the point the agency will accept it are nil. Then there is the fact even if he does the agent just won't pony up.

I think he needs a lot more than luck on this one I am afraid.

From my reading of it the options are 3 weeks money without any real hassle or 5 weeks money if you push things and the agency caves in.

And I really can't see the latter occurring because in the previous case like this we saw that even Safe Collections didn't see much change of success.

I would suggest as I've continually done that the OP takes the 3 weeks being offered and chalks it down to experience.

[northernladuk]

There are two fights here, OP will need to fight to prove the opt out was invalid as the agency has a signed piece of paper which says it was. Once that is resolved they will then have to use that to get the extra two weeks.

You have to be lucky every time, they only have to be lucky one

That's the theory yes. Thing is, opt in/outs are done so badly due to neither the contractor nor agency understand it so the chances of him proving it to the point the agency will accept it are nil. Then there is the fact even if he does the agent just won't pony up.

I think he needs a lot more than luck on this one I am afraid.

[SimonMac]

There are two fights here, OP will need to fight to prove the opt out was invalid as the agency has a signed piece of paper which says it was. Once that is resolved they will then have to use that to get the extra two weeks.

You have to be lucky every time, they only have to be lucky one

[northernladuk]

They said they worked five weeks.

Something isn't right here. Why would a client only pay for three if the OP has worked five. That makes no sense. What might make sense is the replacement isn't cheaper. What if the OP has been that bad the client has had to replace them and they believe what has been delivered is only worth three weeks not five. I don't think we are getting the full story here as usual.

[ladymuck]

I'd give it a try though. Chance of success is slim, granted.

Would love to know why the client won't pay the extra two weeks. I do wonder if there's something we haven't been told about.

[eek]

I agree with you; the advice above is probably from a practicality point of view.

The OP needs to invoice the agency, it seems like they're on a self-billing arrangement so are under the misapprehension that they cannot issue an invoice without a signed timesheet.

Hopefully the OP has it in writing that the client acknowledges 5 weeks were worked but will only pay for 3. That plus their own invoice should be sufficient evidence to demand payment from the agency.

Except for the fact the user has opted out - which means the agency is not under any obligation to pay you for the work you did - that the agency does not receive money for.

And we have already seen for a previous conversation that Safe Collections won't push for payment in these circumstances due to issues within the contract (wish I could find the post but you know how bad the search system currently is).

[ladymuck]

Does stagger me that people think it is acceptable for clients to wriggle out of paying invoices.

Not really my field but go through the Dunning process. Good luck.

I agree with you; the advice above is probably from a practicality point of view.

The OP needs to invoice the agency, it seems like they're on a self-billing arrangement so are under the misapprehension that they cannot issue an invoice without a signed timesheet.

Hopefully the OP has it in writing that the client acknowledges 5 weeks were worked but will only pay for 3. That plus their own invoice should be sufficient evidence to demand payment from the agency.

[SussexSeagull]

Does stagger me that people think it is acceptable for clients to wriggle out of paying invoices.

Not really my field but go through the Dunning process. Good luck.