Limited company unpaid invoice

user1977

xyz111 said:

my contract is with intermediate company who pay me based on approved timesheet which I directly raise to end client.  I have always communicated with end client using email. They are renowned company. My line manager is also home based. How to find their address to serve them court notice. I think I should serve notice to intermediate company, which I have address of. Can I use the line manager's email to serve them notice as all communication is using emails. thanks.

Not sure what you're asking but you should serve notice to the company's registered office. No harm in copying by email but you shouldn't rely on it as being adequate notice (it won't be for serving actual court papers).

xyz111

thanks.
i hope small court claim thing works..

Bookworm225

xyz111 said:

thanks.
i hope small court claim thing works..

100% depends on the evidence you present in your case

- contract with rate per hour and no ceiling signed by end client
- client manager has signed your timesheet showing total hours worked (do not use the phrase line manager as that implies an employee/employer relationship)
- letter before action served
- court papers served on registered address of the company named in your contract 


no idea what you mean by "intermediate company". Care to explain?

xyz111

i provide engineering consultancy services to an engineering company. they do not pay me directly rather they take my timesheets and send money to another company who I have the contract with (intermediate company). The intermediate company then pays me. My contract is directly with intermediate company but I provide services to the engineering company (end client).

I will come back in touch with intermediate company who I have direct contract with and start serving them notices.

intermediate company gets instructions from end client but ignores my correspondence completely. But I have a signed contract with them and their address.

Bookworm225

sounds like a contrivance to avoid IR35

xyz111

i hope court claim works.. i did all hard work and now they are playing hard ball instead paying me for all work completed..

DullGreyGuy

Bookworm225 said:

sounds like a contrivance to avoid IR35

No its the normal setup when an employment agency has been used, its how they get their 15-25% markup paid.

Many of these recruitment companies have setup a pseudo consultancy giving end clients the choice as to if they hire a contractor via recruitment or a consultant via the consultancy arm, the later tends to come with a higher markup but claims to be the entity assuming the IR35 risk. Some have turned into small consultancies with a mixture of perm and contract consultants others are just contract. 

xyz111 said:

i provide engineering consultancy services to an engineering company. they do not pay me directly rather they take my timesheets and send money to another company who I have the contract with (intermediate company). The intermediate company then pays me. My contract is directly with intermediate company but I provide services to the engineering company (end client).

I will come back in touch with intermediate company who I have direct contract with and start serving them notices.

intermediate company gets instructions from end client but ignores my correspondence completely. But I have a signed contract with them and their address.

You need to read your contracts properly if you are going to allege they have breached them and you are going to take them to court. 

From what you state the agency is only liable for paying you what was signed on your timesheet and your timesheet has only stated 40 hours? So where is their breach? If the software didnt allow more than 40 to be entered or the ultimate client was refusing to sign off timesheets of more than 40 hours then this needed raising at the time it happened for the second time at the very least. 

I struggle to see what your allegations are against the agency and you have no contractual relationship with the ultimately client. 

Bookworm225

DullGreyGuy said:

Bookworm225 said:

sounds like a contrivance to avoid IR35

No its the normal setup when an employment agency has been used, its how they get their 15-25% markup paid.

Many of these recruitment companies have setup a pseudo consultancy giving end clients the choice as to if they hire a contractor via recruitment or a consultant via the consultancy arm, the later tends to come with a higher markup but claims to be the entity assuming the IR35 risk. Some have turned into small consultancies with a mixture of perm and contract consultants others are just contract. 

yes, a contrivance for IR 35 purposes 

DullGreyGuy

Bookworm225 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Bookworm225 said:

sounds like a contrivance to avoid IR35

No its the normal setup when an employment agency has been used, its how they get their 15-25% markup paid.

Many of these recruitment companies have setup a pseudo consultancy giving end clients the choice as to if they hire a contractor via recruitment or a consultant via the consultancy arm, the later tends to come with a higher markup but claims to be the entity assuming the IR35 risk. Some have turned into small consultancies with a mixture of perm and contract consultants others are just contract. 

yes, a contrivance for IR 35 purposes 

The later is, it came about in response to IR35 changes, but is a very small part of the market still.

The former isnt and has existed as a model since before IR35 even existed.

There is nothing the OP has stated that would suggest they arent the traditional job agency thats in the middle of the contracts to get their markup. Its not like a perm where its a fixed fee which is then part rebated if it doesnt work out.

xyz111

Hi
I am a contractor and when delivering contract was not asked to provide the professional indemnity cover etc so did not have to buy the insurance.
Now I have a payment dispute with client, could I buy a contractor cover for legal expenses on retrospective basis. thanks