Reply to: breach of contract

[northernladuk]

Some people are a-holes.

That can be the client, contractor or both.

Amen to that.

[SueEllen]

I was wondering more about why the client isn't treating the contractor better so wondering if there is some lack of respect between the two parties.

Some people are a-holes.

That can be the client, contractor or both.

[northernladuk]

It more likely that the agency didn't amend their contract to suit what the client asked for. Remember agents are salespeople with less understanding of contract law than the average contractor.

So while the client may be well within their rights to terminate immediately with no reason given if the agency was stupid enough not to put this in as a termination clause, then the contractor needs to go after the agency. It doesn't matter whether or not there is timesheet as the client doesn't have to sign this for a valid notice period. Kittycat or whatever her new name is did this, and eventually the agency settled out of court to avoid having a ruling against them.

Some of my contracts have clearly stated that the contract can be terminated if there is no work in the termination clause and others do not. This means that I have managed to get a client to pay a notice period due to them not mentioning this there as on other contracts I have agreed to finish a couple of days earlier.

I was wondering more about why the client isn't treating the contractor better so wondering if there is some lack of respect between the two parties.

[SueEllen]

We don't really know though. I can't help feeling there is something else going on here we are not being told about. Why would the guy laugh when he mentioned it and be so eager for him to be out of the door. Something doesn't seem right here.

It more likely that the agency didn't amend their contract to suit what the client asked for. Remember agents are salespeople with less understanding of contract law than the average contractor.

So while the client may be well within their rights to terminate immediately with no reason given if the agency was stupid enough not to put this in as a termination clause, then the contractor needs to go after the agency. It doesn't matter whether or not there is timesheet as the client doesn't have to sign this for a valid notice period. Kittycat or whatever her new name is did this, and eventually the agency settled out of court to avoid having a ruling against them.

Some of my contracts have clearly stated that the contract can be terminated if there is no work in the termination clause and others do not. This means that I have managed to get a client to pay a notice period due to them not mentioning this there as on other contracts I have agreed to finish a couple of days earlier.

[GazCol]

Ah, OK. You're fine to assume that he's outside IR35 based on the original post, and therefore it's a lot of money to lose, whereas one doesn't have enough information to assume that the OP is inside IR35 and therefore the difference isn't going to be that great.

As per my post:

It's a significant amount, if outside IR35 per year, at a rough approximation

I didn't make an assumption or second guess; I clearly stated if.

[DirtyDog]

There's no where near enough information in the OP's post to form an opinion on their IR35 status - the only information given is the intent to make the role permanent, which wasn't documented and quickly proved to not be the case.

If anything, being asked to leave the contract early because there was no work available would be a good IR35 defence.

Ah, OK. You're fine to assume that he's outside IR35 based on the original post, and therefore it's a lot of money to lose, whereas one doesn't have enough information to assume that the OP is inside IR35 and therefore the difference isn't going to be that great.

[GazCol]

Reading the original post, I don't think this is an outside IR35 contract.

There's no where near enough information in the OP's post to form an opinion on their IR35 status - the only information given is the intent to make the role permanent, which wasn't documented and quickly proved to not be the case.

If anything, being asked to leave the contract early because there was no work available would be a good IR35 defence.

[DirtyDog]

It's a significant amount, if outside IR35 per year, at a rough approximation (lets say a 10% net pay difference for Ltd vs Umbrella, including expenses and accountancy fees, which is being extremely generous) based on 40 hours a week that's £4k a year. Over 12 years... yeah, that's a lot of money for anybody.

Reading the original post, I don't think this is an outside IR35 contract.

[GazCol]

If the rate is as low as the original post suggests (£20 an hour), then you won't lose that much by going umbrella rather than Ltd.

It's a significant amount, if outside IR35 per year, at a rough approximation (lets say a 10% net pay difference for Ltd vs Umbrella, including expenses and accountancy fees, which is being extremely generous) based on 40 hours a week that's £4k a year. Over 12 years... yeah, that's a lot of money for anybody.

[DirtyDog]

Holy crap! Umbrella for 12 years?!?!?!?

Have you used the calculators to see how much you have lost over that period?

How long was this contract that you have just finished?

If the rate is as low as the original post suggests (£20 an hour), then you won't lose that much by going umbrella rather than Ltd.

[GazCol]

We don't really know though. I can't help feeling there is something else going on here we are not being told about. Why would the guy laugh when he mentioned it and be so eager for him to be out of the door. Something doesn't seem right here.

Yes, there's always another side to the story nor can I believe any company would through around gross misconduct terms without evidence to back it up, especially in a business to business relationship.

[northernladuk]

The rate advertised is irrelevant if the job spec is the same. If there's no justification for terminating the contract, which considering we don't know the terms of the contract is a big if, they've clearly breached the contract. It's this mindset of many contractors to put it down to experience, roll over and get another contract that allows co's to get away with this behaviour.

However, it's all moot if, as Wanderer said in an earlier post, the contract has the provision to terminate without notice & reason.

We don't really know though. I can't help feeling there is something else going on here we are not being told about. Why would the guy laugh when he mentioned it and be so eager for him to be out of the door. Something doesn't seem right here.

[GazCol]

Not for him at that rate there wasn't. Doesn't matter anyway, it's not covered by employment laws or anything. If they don't want to give him work they don't have to. The work budgeted for a guy on £20 finished and a new set of work, probably de-skilled looking that the rate chop started so the position is open.

They can word it however they want, still comes to the same end.

The rate advertised is irrelevant if the job spec is the same. If there's no justification for terminating the contract, which considering we don't know the terms of the contract is a big if, they've clearly breached the contract. It's this mindset of many contractors to put it down to experience, roll over and get another contract that allows co's to get away with this behaviour.

However, it's all moot if, as Wanderer said in an earlier post, the contract has the provision to terminate without notice & reason.

[northernladuk]

The co readvertising the role at a lower rate suggests there's work available.

As other's have said, it sounds like the co want to save costs but have gone about it in the wrong manner; I expect they'll settle before it gets to court.

Not for him at that rate there wasn't. Doesn't matter anyway, it's not covered by employment laws or anything. If they don't want to give him work they don't have to. The work budgeted for a guy on £20 finished and a new set of work, probably de-skilled looking that the rate chop started so the position is open.

They can word it however they want, still comes to the same end.

[GazCol]

I would assume you have been accounting as inside IR35 if the job was to become perm?



This to me is the real issue in hand. You haven't had your contract terminated. They just don't have any work for you. The contract expired naturally but for the last 10 days there was no work so you didn't get paid.

You go on to say you would complete it... How? There was no work. Staying on to get paid after the work has completed would be a big IR35 flag... but I am assuming you were inside already.

When they agreed this how did they do it? Verbally? Sounds more like someone was chicken rather than a real business need to keep you. I would read in to the next paragraph someone else in the company decided they shouldn't be chicken and deal with the situation.



Again, they haven't terminated you, they just don't have work for you.



The problem here is you have to prove loss to win something like this. All they have to do is say that there was no more work which you also mention twice in your posts. You are still in contract therefore no notice is due but no money is due because they had nothing for you to do. Yes they went about it wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the situation which they will come back to. We know from IR35 that the reality of the situation is key, not the contract so would expect the same to happen here.

Were you opted in or out of the regulations? I assume the fact you have spoken to them that you are opted in? Is that so?

All that said, as has already been mentioned, by kicking up a fuss they may just pay it to make the issue go away so you could try, but then again they may not.

The co readvertising the role at a lower rate suggests there's work available.

As other's have said, it sounds like the co want to save costs but have gone about it in the wrong manner; I expect they'll settle before it gets to court.