Reply to: Screening process

[MyUserName]

Yeah, I am trying to avoid burning bridges and they are a nice bunch of guys but I am wary of any further business dealings with them. I am focussing on getting as much of my money as I can and then either terminating the contract or getting half the money up front for project work.

[gixxer2021]

As an update to anyone interested - I had a call with them yesterday.

The are arguing the toss about research into some new technologies being on the invoice when they had not asked for it. I pointed them towards the conversation where they said they were happy to pay for me to do research but offered to remove those hours from the invoice as it was only 4 hours.

They complained that something I had written was not what they had asked for, I pointed out that it matched exactly the specs I had been sent but they insist those were marketing documents and were not intended to be used as a spec. They both claimed that the spec was verbally described (I do not recollect that but it is possible) and any communication issues were my fault. I offered to halve the charge for those hours as the work was done in good faith and most of it still applies imho. If they do not want to pay anything for it then I guess I will write off the hours and not give them access to the repo.

I also pointed out that when we changed from 40 hours a week to hour by hour billing we did not discuss it until later June and no contract was signed until July so for them to apply the new contract from the 1st of June was unexpected hence some of the confusion over the hours as I was not keeping detailed records in June overall this caused a difference of about £1500 which I wrote off.

Apparently, they have a lost their main client (pretty much their only regular source of revenue) which might be why they are panicking a little.

Overall the conversation was friendly and they want to keep me on for when they have work they need done.

I’m with The Dude on this, they sound an absolute nightmare to deal with. Did you provide them the results of the research, quick doc or prototype, etc? Even without, the fact they’re haggling over a few hours is dreadful, worse they’ve cost you 1500 due to them applying contract terms that weren’t even in force till the following month. I’d still try and avoid burning bridges (sounds like you’re definitely doing that, but at your own cost), but avoid them in the future unless no other options

[eek]

No it is not an opinion. He is stating that it is illegal to give a negative reference, he is asserting a fact.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bad-work-r...071722507.html

Yes you can say there are crap but you better have a lot of money to back up your evidence when it comes to caught.

Which is why everyone (except for Schools where reference wording will be agreed as part of any redundancy package) keeps things as simple as possible and only provides statements that are factually correct without anything subjective.

[JustKeepSwimming]

He wasn't lazy, he was stating an opinion, one that I share.

Please remember that this is a Professional forum.

No it is not an opinion. He is stating that it is illegal to give a negative reference, he is asserting a fact.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bad-work-r...071722507.html

Although it is commonly assumed that an employer must give a reference and writing a “bad” one is illegal, this is not technically the case. In fact, your employer can give you a bad or unfavourable reference if they deem it to be accurate and have reasonable grounds for that belief. However, it is illegal to give an inaccurate reference.

[cojak]

Don't be lazy. You could google it in 2 seconds if you actually cared.

He wasn't lazy, he was stating an opinion, one that I share.

Please remember that this is a Professional forum.

[TheDude]

As an update to anyone interested - I had a call with them yesterday.

The are arguing the toss about research into some new technologies being on the invoice when they had not asked for it. I pointed them towards the conversation where they said they were happy to pay for me to do research but offered to remove those hours from the invoice as it was only 4 hours.

They complained that something I had written was not what they had asked for, I pointed out that it matched exactly the specs I had been sent but they insist those were marketing documents and were not intended to be used as a spec. They both claimed that the spec was verbally described (I do not recollect that but it is possible) and any communication issues were my fault. I offered to halve the charge for those hours as the work was done in good faith and most of it still applies imho. If they do not want to pay anything for it then I guess I will write off the hours and not give them access to the repo.

I also pointed out that when we changed from 40 hours a week to hour by hour billing we did not discuss it until later June and no contract was signed until July so for them to apply the new contract from the 1st of June was unexpected hence some of the confusion over the hours as I was not keeping detailed records in June overall this caused a difference of about £1500 which I wrote off.

Apparently, they have a lost their main client (pretty much their only regular source of revenue) which might be why they are panicking a little.

Overall the conversation was friendly and they want to keep me on for when they have work they need done.

If they are squabbling about 4 hours you need to get out now - they will be timing comfort breaks next.

[MyUserName]

As an update to anyone interested - I had a call with them yesterday.

The are arguing the toss about research into some new technologies being on the invoice when they had not asked for it. I pointed them towards the conversation where they said they were happy to pay for me to do research but offered to remove those hours from the invoice as it was only 4 hours.

They complained that something I had written was not what they had asked for, I pointed out that it matched exactly the specs I had been sent but they insist those were marketing documents and were not intended to be used as a spec. They both claimed that the spec was verbally described (I do not recollect that but it is possible) and any communication issues were my fault. I offered to halve the charge for those hours as the work was done in good faith and most of it still applies imho. If they do not want to pay anything for it then I guess I will write off the hours and not give them access to the repo.

I also pointed out that when we changed from 40 hours a week to hour by hour billing we did not discuss it until later June and no contract was signed until July so for them to apply the new contract from the 1st of June was unexpected hence some of the confusion over the hours as I was not keeping detailed records in June overall this caused a difference of about £1500 which I wrote off.

Apparently, they have a lost their main client (pretty much their only regular source of revenue) which might be why they are panicking a little.

Overall the conversation was friendly and they want to keep me on for when they have work they need done.

[MyUserName]

I reckon it would be the same as say a plasterer / plumber coming in to do a job, you give them a task, they do it, then tell you it took say 3hrs and bill accordingly. The issue is that you need someone to sign off the job to say it's been done to an acceptable standard. I feel like maybe that never happened hence they are now saying there's issues with previously delivered work.

Personally I don't get why they assumed OP would be on call effectively for free. The first thing you typically think of with on-call people is that a) they are being paid all the time b) can we afford it with a contractor. Thinking you can get someone on-call for 20-30% of pay is a bit retarded if you ask me.

Anyways, all guess, so it's a bit pointless...

This was my expectation. As in they give me a shout when there is work to do and say we need this written and I would give them an estimate, write it and then bill them. It seemed quite a standard workflow in my mind.

[TheDude]

I reckon it would be the same as say a plasterer / plumber coming in to do a job, you give them a task, they do it, then tell you it took say 3hrs and bill accordingly.

You are not thinking like a contractor or a plasterer.

You tell the client you need to pick up materials, return three hours later with egg yolk on your T-Shirt, do three hours work and bill for a day.

[dsc]

Don't really get how it's meant to work. Ok you're now hourly, but which hours? Hours where there is work? Ok but who decides what is and isn't work?

Surely you agreed roughly what hours you would be working and when? Otherwise then I can see why they would think you're effectively on call.

I reckon it would be the same as say a plasterer / plumber coming in to do a job, you give them a task, they do it, then tell you it took say 3hrs and bill accordingly. The issue is that you need someone to sign off the job to say it's been done to an acceptable standard. I feel like maybe that never happened hence they are now saying there's issues with previously delivered work.

Personally I don't get why they assumed OP would be on call effectively for free. The first thing you typically think of with on-call people is that a) they are being paid all the time b) can we afford it with a contractor. Thinking you can get someone on-call for 20-30% of pay is a bit retarded if you ask me.

Anyways, all guess, so it's a bit pointless...

[TheGreenBastard]

Personally I wouldn't mention the fact that you have another client (perfectly fine when running a true business), or that I need to somehow pay the mortgage (no one really cares / needs to know), but that's all done and dusted, so no point in focusing on it.

What I don't get though is why the CTO had no idea you moved to hourly billing due to not enough work, who the hell agreed with you that it's OK to go to hourly? I'm guessing they were fully aware that hourly is due to not enough work and not "oh wow this chap will bill us less, but still be there 40hrs a week for support"? there seems to be a fair amount of dim people at that place...

Well it's exposed the dynamic of the relationship, clearly they think they own him like a perm, even in light of agreeing to hourly - saying you have a mortgage to pay probably solidifies that impression. With that said about it clearly being deep inside IR35, I don't think there will be any screening process issues, often it's an external entity, I've never personally seen anything come of these types of situations.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Personally I wouldn't mention the fact that you have another client (perfectly fine when running a true business), or that I need to somehow pay the mortgage (no one really cares / needs to know), but that's all done and dusted, so no point in focusing on it.

What I don't get though is why the CTO had no idea you moved to hourly billing due to not enough work, who the hell agreed with you that it's OK to go to hourly? I'm guessing they were fully aware that hourly is due to not enough work and not "oh wow this chap will bill us less, but still be there 40hrs a week for support"? there seems to be a fair amount of dim people at that place...

Don't really get how it's meant to work. Ok you're now hourly, but which hours? Hours where there is work? Ok but who decides what is and isn't work?

Surely you agreed roughly what hours you would be working and when? Otherwise then I can see why they would think you're effectively on call.

[dsc]

Personally I wouldn't mention the fact that you have another client (perfectly fine when running a true business), or that I need to somehow pay the mortgage (no one really cares / needs to know), but that's all done and dusted, so no point in focusing on it.

What I don't get though is why the CTO had no idea you moved to hourly billing due to not enough work, who the hell agreed with you that it's OK to go to hourly? I'm guessing they were fully aware that hourly is due to not enough work and not "oh wow this chap will bill us less, but still be there 40hrs a week for support"? there seems to be a fair amount of dim people at that place...

[MyUserName]

I'm guessing it's an inside gig if you're so naive and open about having other "clients", and justifying it with paying the mortgage. Why would a business expose itself like that, you moved to hourly and that's when your mouth should have shut. A great example of power imbalance to boot.

The only justification I gave for going to hourly rather than weekly was that there was not enough work to justify billing weekly.

The rest of the conversation occurred later when the CTO asked why I wasn’t available in the working day (he tried to phone me a few times, which is unusual) and I explained I had another client. They seemed surprised. I explained it was fully compliant with my contract. They still seemed surprised so I asked them how they imagined I was going to pay the mortgage otherwise and they didn’t reply.

Not sure what this has to do with the question at hand though. If you want to flame me for being stupid then perhaps start a thread in general?

[TheGreenBastard]

I'm guessing it's an inside gig if you're so naive and open about having other "clients", and justifying it with paying the mortgage. Why would a business expose itself like that, you moved to hourly and that's when your mouth should have shut. A great example of power imbalance to boot.