Agency Refusing to Pay Me After Leaving Contract with No Notice & No Signed Timesheet

[convict]

i think that's the whole point here. Know when to talk and when to walk. Definitely one of those times to leave it alone...

[TheFaQQer]

Anyway.. Another issue is that the fact he had his sub refused so his clause his a sham. He has no evidence he wasn't under D&C or of MoO so he is IR35 caught.

Without any more information, it's all tilting at windmills anyway.

Was there actually a substitute offered, or did the OP say "I can try to find someone"? If a specific person was offered, did the agency have the right to refuse them, and on what grounds? Did they meet those conditions?

If the OP offered a specific replacement, and had the right to do that, and the agency did not have the right to refuse, then the OP should be paid and could possibly consider whether they have a reasonable counter claim against the agency for breach of contract.

Without knowing the exact terms of the contract, and precisely what happened, it's all speculation - and based on past CUK experience, we'll never get either one or both of those required pieces of information.

[psychocandy]

Surely not being able to do the work personally isn't a breach of contract when there's a big ol' substitution clause in your contract. If they don't want a subbie then surely it's they who must terminate the contract - not the contractor?

Probably wouldn't bother for the sake of a week unless you somehow could get a decent replacement and still skim a large margin, but...

Good point about the subbie though. Assuming OP is genuine - they are ill and cant complete then dont see an issue. Might be inconvenient for the client but thats just tough really.

Imagine the scenario. Work a week, get hit by bus on way home friday evening crossing the road outside office. You phone them monday, saying sorry Im in hospital facing operations, months off etc so do you want me to arrange a subbie. They say no. Can't imagine any court in the land upholding this as breach of contract???

[psychocandy]

a) What has empathy got to do with it. It's a black and white fact
b) How does the agent really know you are sick. Your sockie master PC is always advocating to 'go off sick' to get out of notice for contracts so do you really the agent believes you or gives a tulip. He isn't exactly going to ask for medical records to prove it.

And it's not the client that sues him. He doesn't have a contract with the client. Moron.

LOL. Nope I promise unix is not me.

[psychocandy]

Did you breach the contract?

Did you actually terminate the contract, or did you offer to supply a substitute and they declined to accept the substitute? Were they entitled to reject the substitute that you offered? How did you actually offer the substitute?

If you did everything properly (and I think it's a big if), then you are entitled to be paid because you didn't breach the contract. If, however, you didn't do it properly then you get into a more complicated situation and you'll have to read the contract carefully to see what the remedy for breach is (if it is defined at all in there).

If you haven't breached it, then you should be paid - and since you weren't opted out then payment by the client is irrelevant. As long as you can prove that you did the work then the agency has to pay you.

The problem that you might well face is that the agency then sues you for your breach of contract, and gets awarded a sum greater than the amount that they owe you. Whether they will or not isn't something that anyone here can answer - but if you expect them to pay up willingly and be out of pocket because of your actions, I think you're deluding yourself.

Two separate issues.

1) Did you do the work and can you prove it? If so, you should get paid.
2) Are you in breach? If so, agency can sue if they see fit.

2) and 1) are not connected despite what the agency might like, Yes they wont like it but its tough.

[psychocandy]

I've only said the same as most other posters. Not sure why you are trying to have a go.... And don't kid yourself about agents giving a monkies about your situation. Ask PC. He'll put you right.

eh? What've I said now?

[northernladuk]

eh? What've I said now?

That you would be the one to point out agents won't be sympathetic to contractors situations, particularly when it's cost them money and effort.

[psychocandy]

Sue? Probably not, but pay for work not done? No way.

Even if I had other resources booked that I had to pay while standing idle because of the plumber dependency, I'd try to adjust the schedule first I'd probably not sue unless the loss was significant.

Your analogy is very poor (it's just a typical part of your forum trolling), but in reality in this situation as the client I'd not be interested in signing off a timesheet and the Agency could probably counter sue for losses if the OP took it to court.

The OP would be wise to simply walk away.

Dont agree. If OP can in any way prove that he did the work, then agency are likely to fold like a pack of cards if he takes them to small claims. The amount is a trifle for them in any case - they are not going to send someone to defend this.

Even if they did all the judge will be interested in is, did you do the work, ah yes, you can prove it. Agency - so why havent you paid? Right I dont care what else you think is wrong, feel free to deal with that separately, but for now cough up.

Agency counter-sue. VERY unlikely. They can only sue for actual losses they can prove. I.e. possibly costs re-advertising. They wont bother.

[TheFaQQer]

Two separate issues.

1) Did you do the work and can you prove it? If so, you should get paid.
2) Are you in breach? If so, agency can sue if they see fit.

2) and 1) are not connected despite what the agency might like, Yes they wont like it but its tough.

1) Did you do the work, can you prove it, and is there anything in existence which guarantees that you will be paid?

Although there is little in case law, I would expect that if there is something in the contract which grants the agency the right to retain funds, that would trump the protection given by not opting out.

Even if it did, the agency pays out and makes a loss on the contract. So their choice is either to suck this up, or take a simple small claims court action which they would undoubtedly win which costs significantly more to the contractor than the week they have just been paid. And since it sets no legal precedent and costs about £30, why wouldn't they?

[TheFaQQer]

Dont agree. If OP can in any way prove that he did the work, then agency are likely to fold like a pack of cards if he takes them to small claims. The amount is a trifle for them in any case - they are not going to send someone to defend this.

Even if they did all the judge will be interested in is, did you do the work, ah yes, you can prove it. Agency - so why havent you paid? Right I dont care what else you think is wrong, feel free to deal with that separately, but for now cough up.

Agency counter-sue. VERY unlikely. They can only sue for actual losses they can prove. I.e. possibly costs re-advertising. They wont bother.

Don't agree.

Advertising costs, plus agency time and effort plus client time and effort > £30 so why would they just say "it's OK, we'll take the loss here"?

They would do it all as part of defending the small claims court action by the OP, so it probably wouldn't cost them anything, and could send a message to every other contractor that if you breach your contract, expect an agency to fight for what is legally due to them and win.