Invoice dispute - non payment - timesheet not authorised

**d000hg** · 4 January 2011, 13:43

Send a scary letter threatening to bring in your solicitor or small-claims, whichever is most relevant, with a copy of the invoice. Work done is work to be paid for, even if they don't like the work, unless you have a contract stating otherwise. At least, I think so.

**malvolio** · 4 January 2011, 13:48

Originally posted by d000hg View Post

Send a scary letter threatening to bring in your solicitor or small-claims, whichever is most relevant, with a copy of the invoice. Work done is work to be paid for, even if they don't like the work, unless you have a contract stating otherwise. At least, I think so.

Not if it's not of merchantable quality it's not. If the client doesn't like the results, it's not unreasonable for him either to pay nothing for it or pay a reduced amount in line with what they think the value of the work done actually is. If it's not been explicitly defined in the original contractual terms/statement of work, it will be difficult to argue the case either way.

The pragmatic answer is to write this off in the "Sh!t happens" category and move on. Be grateful you're getting something for what you've done; you sure as hell won't get any more.

**LisaContractorUmbrella** · 4 January 2011, 14:16

If you have something in writing from the agency defining the work to be completed and you have acted in accordance with it then I would take the issue up with them and also show said document to the client and ask for their comments. Whether your work was of the required standard is another question but if you have fulfilled a written brief then IMHO it is worth taking further

**apple** · 4 January 2011, 15:14

I'm of the view that work done is work to be paid for much the same as d000hg. I wasn't asked to quote for a specific piece of work. I was offered a rolling one day contract. I completed 3.5 days.

I've only ever contracted at large blue chips before now. This company is very small (circa 8 people) and tbh I think they've used me to produce a good bit of work that they will financially benefit from and are now taking the p***.

My invoice is for a relatively small amount in the grand scheme of things (£1750). It's a pretty sad state of affairs that a company can do this to someone and I have to just write it off as 'tulip happens'.

My gut is telling me to stick with my principles. I've done the work they owe me the full amount for my time. If I stick to this path what next? A scary letter will get me nowhere with the agency I'm sure.

I intend to talk and discuss this through but if all that fails what then? What is the proper channel? Can I pass it to debt collectors on a no win no fee basis?

Cheers for your time.

**b0redom** · 4 January 2011, 16:21

Originally posted by malvolio View Post

Not if it's not of merchantable quality it's not. If the client doesn't like the results, it's not unreasonable for him either to pay nothing for it or pay a reduced amount in line with what they think the value of the work done actually is. ......

Really? So if I get a builder around, and say "I want a conservatory." and they build it, I'm then within my rights to say "Oh, no, I wanted a conservatory made from metal and glass, not uPVC. Tell you what, I'll give you £50 and we'll call it quits"?

Even if I didn't originally specify that?

**malvolio** · 4 January 2011, 16:44

Originally posted by b0redom View Post

Really? So if I get a builder around, and say "I want a conservatory." and they build it, I'm then within my rights to say "Oh, no, I wanted a conservatory made from metal and glass, not uPVC. Tell you what, I'll give you £50 and we'll call it quits"?

Even if I didn't originally specify that?

Actually you could, but if you ordered such a thing without detailing exactly what you wanted in the first place, then you can't argue that what you got is not what you ordered. The builder would have an equally valid claim for his money on the grounds that he built a conservatory that lets light in and keeps the rain out. If it doesn't do those things, then you needn't pay for them and the rework would be at his cost.

The OP has a problem if what was ordered wasn't properly defined so people can argue about what was required after the event (although from his later post I'm tending to agree with his position if that is the contractual reality). Don't forget, contracts are for when things go wrong. They need to cover all the bases.

**northernladuk** · 4 January 2011, 16:51

Originally posted by apple View Post

I was asked, both in writing by the agency and verbally by the director of the end company, to complete an IT due diligence report. Specifically to review a support proposal, further document a bespoke application and highlight any risks in the proposal. I completed this work in 3.5, submitted the draft doc and was asked to make some changes. This I did taking another half day.

On submitting my time-sheets the company has disputed my work. Specifically they have said my document lacks basic information such as server IP addresses, desktop OS versions, desktop software used, etc. It turns our they expected a build document detailing all the information needed to implement the support proposal - not a due diligence.

Subsequently they have not authorised my timesheets. They have offered to pay me for two days - stating that one of there perm consultants could have completed the same work in that time.

I think it comes down to what people expect. I have to admit my first impression is how can you have a due diligence report or a risk report on bespoke apps that doesn't highlight versions and software. Surely these are pretty good areas of risk that need considering. Version of Explorer for web based apps is pretty key. I don't mean to point the finger of blame here but I think you have to consider both sides of the argument.

The culture change to a small company was always going to be difficult qas well. They can be very tight fisted about numbers than a large company and this would constitute a pretty good saving to them. They also have an element of ownership that doesn't exist in a large blue chip.

Good just be a good exercise in swallowing it and moving on I am afraid.

**apple** · 4 January 2011, 17:25

I really appreciate the comments here. Thanks for taking the time.

I didn't want to get into the tech details of what was asked but it's looking like they're becoming relevant. The basic proposal I was reviewing was taking a companies IT infrastructure into support. The proposal was relatively simple, essentially to create a VM of each server and move the lot off site. The desktops stayed as they were.

I spent two days interviewing staff from each business area, documenting org structure and information flow. My report found no risk in virtualising the core file and print systems as this has been done countless times before. I performed server monitoring on the database server and highlighted virtualising this as an area of risk. I also highlighted the proposed bandwidth between the DC and client site as an area of risk.

In short I provided a wealth of information they didn't have and pre-empted the two areas that could cause them a huge problem.

Their feedback 'we can't use your report to build the vmware environment'. I know this, my report was never intended for that purpose.

The more I think about this the more I would rather get paid in full or take nothing. This is the basis of what all business transactions in this country are based on. You ask someone to do a job, they do it, you pay them.

**VectraMan** · 4 January 2011, 18:12

Originally posted by apple View Post

I completed this work in 3.5, submitted the draft doc and was asked to make some changes.

If what you were doing was missing fundamental information and not what they wanted, why didn't they bring it up when they reviewed the draft?

Sounds like they're inventing reasons to get a discount, which is the kind of thing small companies like to do.

Invoice dispute - non payment - timesheet not authorised