Q. I signed with an agency in order to take a contract that was offered to me by one of their “clients”. The agency are now withholding funds for work I have invoiced and had approval for from the end client.
Below is a summary of the events:
Due to change in management and restructuring at the client, on the 17th of March myself and other contractors were told to leave the client building and not to return until a solution could be found and all projects to be paused. Subsequent days past with no resolution and I was told by the agency that I should start to look for new jobs.
I submitted my invoice and signed timesheet from the client to the agency on the 26th March 2015. Today is the 27th of April and I have still not been paid for work done.
Only on the 8th of April was I informed by the agency that the timesheet was not signed by the “correct” person. Even though my previous timesheet I had submitted to them was signed by the same person and I was paid in February with no questions asked.
When the agency was asked who in fact the correct person would be to sign the timesheet or whom they would prefer, they couldn’t provide me with the name of the correct person that needs to authorise the timesheet. I find this hard to believe, as the previous timesheet were signed by a manager who I reported and updated on the project on a daily basis.
It also transpired during this time that there was no signed contract between the end client and the agency.
A. Essentially this is a contract between three parties; the contractor, The Agency and the Hirer.
A contract is an agreement that is intended to be legally binding. This can be done in the form of a formal agreement or orally. Providing all parties are aware of this intent, then there is a valid contract. In this instance there is a clear written contract between the contractor and the agency, that in its basic form outlines that the contractor will provide work for a third party in return for payment. In order to authenticate this the agency outlines that a signed timesheet must be provided.
The contractor submitted a signed timesheet in February and following which payment for his work was received. However in the same circumstances in March payment was refused. The payment in February allows for thee implied presumption that this signature was satisfactory for the purposes of payment authentication, the contractor has acted in good faith and has been no such breach of contract.
The agency cannot refuse payment now due to failure to provide authenticated documentary evidence of the hours worked.
In this instance a signed document outlining the hours worked was provided however it has been indicated by the agency that this was not singed by the correct individual. Investigations have confirmed the hours where worked, yet the correct authority for signing these documents cannot be provided. This is not sufficient reasoning for the refusal of payment. This is an issue between the Agency and the “hirer” and their contractual obligations, not that of the contractor. This outlines that the contract is binding by the Agency and the hirer to the contractor and payment should be received.
Any contractual issues lay within the terms of the contract between the Agency and the hirer. It is stated that there is no signed agreement between these parties. As previously outlined providing this is a formal agreement with the intent to legally bind, than a signed written agreement is not necessary and an oral agreement will suffice. Past payment has indicated a valid binding contract.
Conclusion
On the limited facts provided we can outline that payment is due to the contractor for the works undertaken. The contractor has acted in good faith, completed the works, and provided evidence of such work signed for by an individual who has authorised payment a month previous. We do not have access to the contractor agreement in order to establish the exact terms of payment, however the fact such authorisation was applicable the month before allows the implied assumption that such signature was sufficient.
In order to prevent such disputes it is advisable for all contractor contracts to be clear on the requirements of all parties to ensure payment on time. The most appropriate way to ensure this would be to clearly outline this in the contractor agreement.
The answer to this question was provided by Qdos Legal Services.
Leave a Reply