Hi there,
I´d be very grateful for some advice from you all you experienced guys out there ;-) - I´m currently working on my second contract as a BA -- via agency --for a consultancy, -- who in turn has clients.
I´ve had a few issues with the agency as follows (my contact is very sweet, though, I think he´s just under a lot of pressure from his boss)..
1. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES: in my contract it states that "no expenses are payable when not outside the UK, unless agreed with (agency´s) client=consultancy beforehand".
I read this as: expenses will be paid, just need to have the consultancy agree to them first (no issue here, they are fine with my expenses and I get along just fabulously with them).
when I enquired about an expense form the agency to list my expenses and add them to the invoice, I was told "as per contract, we don´t pay expenses. If the consultancy´s client has agreed to pay them, go straight to them, and get the money back from them. And if you don´t get it back, you can still deduct this from your earnings, so that at least you won´t pay tax on it." Thanks very much, is still lost earnings, though. And I am talking about normal expenses like train tickets to client site, nothing outrageous or fancy..
anyway - of course, I won´t do it, because the consultancy will pay my expenses now directly - but what to do you think of the senior manager´s suggestion that I go to his client´s client to get reimbursed??
And should I not still be able to put them on the invoices to the agency rather than having their client reimburse me directly? have you ever heard of such an arrangement, both the agencies suggestion and clause in contract, unless specifically negotiated as such as an exemption for typical terms?
the consultancy directors were livid, when they heard that, on my behalf..
also, I found out that the agency sold me to the consultancy as "she won´t charge any expenses, when working within the UK, only outside the UK". this sounds very suspicious to me, as I believe that they may charge a higher daily rate for me to the consultancy based on this promise, while unloading all the risk onto me.
2. PAYMENT TERMS: in my contract payment terms are weekly, payable 7 days after receipt of timesheet and invoice. (quite good, I know, but
When they realised they´ve made a mistake, i.e. sent me an old version, they didn´t acknowledge that, but rather:
- tried to twist the facts as if they´d helped me out a bit during the first weeks, but that this would need to stop now, and dictated that I could only invoice monthly with immediate effect.
- attached to the email was a new version of my contract, which reflected the change to monthly payment. A hardcopy of this was without comment sent to me a week later, expecting me to sign subito. (Which I haven´t done yet, neither have I agreed verbally or via email; so the old contract with weekly terms is still valid, I believe)
- reasoning they gave for the change:
1. A note on the cover sheet that came with the first contract, saying that they could amend the contract at any time, reflecting the terms of business offered to them by their client
Now, I still need to agree to the change, don´t I? Otherwise they could decide one day to pay me in oranges instead of pounds – so to speak
Also, this would indicate to me that there should be a change in the terms with the clients since the contract started – which hasn´t been the case. Or am I wrong?
2. according to the factoring agreement with their bank, they could only pay me in accordance with how often they invoice the consultancy (which is monthly)
This sounds totally ridiculous to me – the equivalent would mean that the agency could only invoice the consultancy, once THEY have invoiced THEIR clients. What do I care – my contract is with the agency, not the agency´s client!
Plus, this should at least be mentioned in my contract somewhere as a necessary condition, but it isn´t - not in the old one, not in the new one.
Have you ever heard of such a limiting condition imposed by the bank, on when to pay their contractors? At least for a company that’s not in administration?
As I said, so far I haven´t agreed to nor signed anything.
Another point is that they actually don´t even have a signed version of the original contract from me, only I have one from them, because I sent only one signed version back instead of two – which they have returned to me with signature.
But on the other hand – I suppose that fact that I have already done 6 weeks or so of work for their client, means that I de facto have accepted the contract.
3. finally LATE PAYMENTS
So far, they have been late with 3 payments, the first of which happened immediately after the first incident with them wanting to change weekly to monthly – suspiciously enough. I only got the two outstanding invoices paid, because the director of the consultancy acted immediately, called them up and gave them hell, telling them that either they will pay pronto or they´ll pay me directly themselves. (am I lucky with them, I know ;-)
The agency claimed that they had sent the payment, had no idea what happened, and then – oops, actually, no we haven´t, but we´ll do straight away. (which they did)
And today again no payment in my account – even though this would refer to the last invoice of the past month, which even in their new books would constitute monthly payment..
I´m really totally pissed off by their behaviour, trying to take me for a ride, so it´s turning for me into a matter of principle – or am I overreacting?
Unfortunately, I really need the weekly cashflow urgently, at least for the next few months..
Would REALLY appreciate all the views and input you can give me!
Thanks
I´d be very grateful for some advice from you all you experienced guys out there ;-) - I´m currently working on my second contract as a BA -- via agency --for a consultancy, -- who in turn has clients.
I´ve had a few issues with the agency as follows (my contact is very sweet, though, I think he´s just under a lot of pressure from his boss)..
1. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES: in my contract it states that "no expenses are payable when not outside the UK, unless agreed with (agency´s) client=consultancy beforehand".
I read this as: expenses will be paid, just need to have the consultancy agree to them first (no issue here, they are fine with my expenses and I get along just fabulously with them).
when I enquired about an expense form the agency to list my expenses and add them to the invoice, I was told "as per contract, we don´t pay expenses. If the consultancy´s client has agreed to pay them, go straight to them, and get the money back from them. And if you don´t get it back, you can still deduct this from your earnings, so that at least you won´t pay tax on it." Thanks very much, is still lost earnings, though. And I am talking about normal expenses like train tickets to client site, nothing outrageous or fancy..
anyway - of course, I won´t do it, because the consultancy will pay my expenses now directly - but what to do you think of the senior manager´s suggestion that I go to his client´s client to get reimbursed??
And should I not still be able to put them on the invoices to the agency rather than having their client reimburse me directly? have you ever heard of such an arrangement, both the agencies suggestion and clause in contract, unless specifically negotiated as such as an exemption for typical terms?
the consultancy directors were livid, when they heard that, on my behalf..
also, I found out that the agency sold me to the consultancy as "she won´t charge any expenses, when working within the UK, only outside the UK". this sounds very suspicious to me, as I believe that they may charge a higher daily rate for me to the consultancy based on this promise, while unloading all the risk onto me.
2. PAYMENT TERMS: in my contract payment terms are weekly, payable 7 days after receipt of timesheet and invoice. (quite good, I know, but
When they realised they´ve made a mistake, i.e. sent me an old version, they didn´t acknowledge that, but rather:
- tried to twist the facts as if they´d helped me out a bit during the first weeks, but that this would need to stop now, and dictated that I could only invoice monthly with immediate effect.
- attached to the email was a new version of my contract, which reflected the change to monthly payment. A hardcopy of this was without comment sent to me a week later, expecting me to sign subito. (Which I haven´t done yet, neither have I agreed verbally or via email; so the old contract with weekly terms is still valid, I believe)
- reasoning they gave for the change:
1. A note on the cover sheet that came with the first contract, saying that they could amend the contract at any time, reflecting the terms of business offered to them by their client
Now, I still need to agree to the change, don´t I? Otherwise they could decide one day to pay me in oranges instead of pounds – so to speak
Also, this would indicate to me that there should be a change in the terms with the clients since the contract started – which hasn´t been the case. Or am I wrong?
2. according to the factoring agreement with their bank, they could only pay me in accordance with how often they invoice the consultancy (which is monthly)
This sounds totally ridiculous to me – the equivalent would mean that the agency could only invoice the consultancy, once THEY have invoiced THEIR clients. What do I care – my contract is with the agency, not the agency´s client!
Plus, this should at least be mentioned in my contract somewhere as a necessary condition, but it isn´t - not in the old one, not in the new one.
Have you ever heard of such a limiting condition imposed by the bank, on when to pay their contractors? At least for a company that’s not in administration?
As I said, so far I haven´t agreed to nor signed anything.
Another point is that they actually don´t even have a signed version of the original contract from me, only I have one from them, because I sent only one signed version back instead of two – which they have returned to me with signature.
But on the other hand – I suppose that fact that I have already done 6 weeks or so of work for their client, means that I de facto have accepted the contract.
3. finally LATE PAYMENTS
So far, they have been late with 3 payments, the first of which happened immediately after the first incident with them wanting to change weekly to monthly – suspiciously enough. I only got the two outstanding invoices paid, because the director of the consultancy acted immediately, called them up and gave them hell, telling them that either they will pay pronto or they´ll pay me directly themselves. (am I lucky with them, I know ;-)
The agency claimed that they had sent the payment, had no idea what happened, and then – oops, actually, no we haven´t, but we´ll do straight away. (which they did)
And today again no payment in my account – even though this would refer to the last invoice of the past month, which even in their new books would constitute monthly payment..
I´m really totally pissed off by their behaviour, trying to take me for a ride, so it´s turning for me into a matter of principle – or am I overreacting?
Unfortunately, I really need the weekly cashflow urgently, at least for the next few months..
Would REALLY appreciate all the views and input you can give me!
Thanks
Comment