Contractural Advice
Discussion
I hope someone can advise -
Basically.
Cleaning company provides cleaner to domestic client
Client cancels but cleaner is found to be still going to client afterwards.
contract states that the cleaner was not to return to the client after the contract was terminated and an end date was given. clear evidence is available of cleaner at address, on several dates after the end date.
Would the small claims court find in favour of the client or the company....
Basically.
Cleaning company provides cleaner to domestic client
Client cancels but cleaner is found to be still going to client afterwards.
contract states that the cleaner was not to return to the client after the contract was terminated and an end date was given. clear evidence is available of cleaner at address, on several dates after the end date.
Would the small claims court find in favour of the client or the company....
So was cleaner being paid cash by ex client instead of it going through the company? or are they friends?
Was the cleaner cleaning? is the first thing to establish I guess.
if they where then its down to what's in the contracts, if I was you and its in the contracts id be sacking the cleaner. Tough situation though. Just do what you threaten to do in your contracts.
Was the cleaner cleaning? is the first thing to establish I guess.
if they where then its down to what's in the contracts, if I was you and its in the contracts id be sacking the cleaner. Tough situation though. Just do what you threaten to do in your contracts.
ruggedscotty said:
I hope someone can advise -
Basically.
Cleaning company provides cleaner to domestic client
Client cancels but cleaner is found to be still going to client afterwards.
contract states that the cleaner was not to return to the client after the contract was terminated and an end date was given. clear evidence is available of cleaner at address, on several dates after the end date.
Would the small claims court find in favour of the client or the company....
Which contract states what? The contract between company and cleaner, or company and client?Basically.
Cleaning company provides cleaner to domestic client
Client cancels but cleaner is found to be still going to client afterwards.
contract states that the cleaner was not to return to the client after the contract was terminated and an end date was given. clear evidence is available of cleaner at address, on several dates after the end date.
Would the small claims court find in favour of the client or the company....
Is (or was?) the cleaner an employee of the cleaning firm?
What specific point(s) in which contract(s) are you looking for an opinion on? From the question asked I'm guessing it is the contract between company and client that has some sort of clause to prevent the cleaner going direct in future. What is the loss you wish to sue for?
contract states that the client is liable for a years fees.
cleaner has been dropped. Self employed and all jobs have been reallocated and we will not use them again.
Cleaner had continued to clean afterwards. initial correspondence they said that the cleaner had missed a few cleans and was doing this to meet her obligations.
contract states that the client should not have been using cleaner after the date of termination. contact had stated that any missed cleans would have been met by a cover clean if required,
So if cleaner was cleaning after the termination date they were in clear breach of the contract between the client and the company. Client and cleaner had come to an agreement that was itself in violation of the contract.
cleaner has been dropped. Self employed and all jobs have been reallocated and we will not use them again.
Cleaner had continued to clean afterwards. initial correspondence they said that the cleaner had missed a few cleans and was doing this to meet her obligations.
contract states that the client should not have been using cleaner after the date of termination. contact had stated that any missed cleans would have been met by a cover clean if required,
So if cleaner was cleaning after the termination date they were in clear breach of the contract between the client and the company. Client and cleaner had come to an agreement that was itself in violation of the contract.
Edited by ruggedscotty on Tuesday 29th November 14:40
ruggedscotty said:
contract states that the client is liable for a years fees.
cleaner has been dropped. Self employed and all jobs have been reallocated and we will not use them again.
Cleaner had continued to clean afterwards. initial correspondence they said that the cleaner had missed a few cleans and was doing this to meet her obligations.
contract states that the client should not have been using cleaner after the date of termination. contact had stated that any missed cleans would have been met by a cover clean if required, So if cleaner was cleaning after the termination date they were in clear breach of the contract.
Cleaners self employed, and you no longer contract them, they are under no obligation to you.cleaner has been dropped. Self employed and all jobs have been reallocated and we will not use them again.
Cleaner had continued to clean afterwards. initial correspondence they said that the cleaner had missed a few cleans and was doing this to meet her obligations.
contract states that the client should not have been using cleaner after the date of termination. contact had stated that any missed cleans would have been met by a cover clean if required, So if cleaner was cleaning after the termination date they were in clear breach of the contract.
Client has terminated contract and im assuming has paid his fees to his contract as required?
I'm lost with this. Unless stated in a contract you have no right to anything after a client has terminated his contract, and a self employed cleaner can clean for whomever ever they want, if the cleaner is contracted only to you by the contract then your in trouble with HMRC as that isn't a self employed person but an employee.
Read the contracts and figure it out.
But so far I don't think your 'entitled' to anything, I see no 'loss'
I took advice on this.
The client signed up for a cleaning service, signed a contract with us.
Cleaner was sourced, we use independent self employed cleaners, they work with us aswell as other jobs that they do, so no they are not employed by us, but they carry out work for the client. As the client has signed a contract with us and we have provided the cleaner, they are locked into the contract and its terms and conditions. To cancel the contract and then take on the cleaner themselves after the final date is indeed a violation. We had that cleared up this afternoon so will be lodging a small claims action on the client to recover the fees stipulated on the contract.
The client signed up for a cleaning service, signed a contract with us.
Cleaner was sourced, we use independent self employed cleaners, they work with us aswell as other jobs that they do, so no they are not employed by us, but they carry out work for the client. As the client has signed a contract with us and we have provided the cleaner, they are locked into the contract and its terms and conditions. To cancel the contract and then take on the cleaner themselves after the final date is indeed a violation. We had that cleared up this afternoon so will be lodging a small claims action on the client to recover the fees stipulated on the contract.
A couple of thoughts...
If the case got coverage in the local press, would it damage your reputation?
What is the loss you are claiming (can you prove costs you have incurred as a result, or only the potentially lost commission/management fees?).
As your contract is B2C, you will presumably be into Consumer Rights Act / Unfair Terms territory. I would have thought if the sums involved are worth chasing, then this might put it into the "high risk" terms?
Unrelated to this particular issue/claim, just because your cleaners have other clients does not mean they are not an employee.
If the case got coverage in the local press, would it damage your reputation?
What is the loss you are claiming (can you prove costs you have incurred as a result, or only the potentially lost commission/management fees?).
As your contract is B2C, you will presumably be into Consumer Rights Act / Unfair Terms territory. I would have thought if the sums involved are worth chasing, then this might put it into the "high risk" terms?
Unrelated to this particular issue/claim, just because your cleaners have other clients does not mean they are not an employee.
Hi
Dont think it would damage the reputation, issue is contractural and if you have folks coming in getting you to find a cleaner for them and then go away thinking they can keep the cleaner direct. I was wondering about a couple of things in this but these have been cleared up.
The client signed the contract and its clear in the terms and conditions, no issue if they find their own cleaner and cancel but if they cancel the contract and take the cleaner on directly then they have broken the t&c's
I approached and got some information on this and will use that as its actually pretty straightforward. The money isnt really so much of the issue, just that the way it was done gave us some issues that we would like to ratify and clarify, mostly for future reference.
Dont think it would damage the reputation, issue is contractural and if you have folks coming in getting you to find a cleaner for them and then go away thinking they can keep the cleaner direct. I was wondering about a couple of things in this but these have been cleared up.
The client signed the contract and its clear in the terms and conditions, no issue if they find their own cleaner and cancel but if they cancel the contract and take the cleaner on directly then they have broken the t&c's
I approached and got some information on this and will use that as its actually pretty straightforward. The money isnt really so much of the issue, just that the way it was done gave us some issues that we would like to ratify and clarify, mostly for future reference.
Is this a case of the Ho needs work, but cant find any Gentlemen, so goes to the Pimp, who runs a few girls on a popular back street. The Ho now gets quite a few gentlemen, and the Pimp gets his cut... but then Ho or Gentlemen decide to cut the pimp out ?
As a long term contractor, I understand that there's only 2 people getting fecked in this three way... And if you want to be the winner, be the Pimp
As a long term contractor, I understand that there's only 2 people getting fecked in this three way... And if you want to be the winner, be the Pimp
Ah I thought this was mumsnet but just realised that this was pistonheads....
simple terms...
Person looking for cleaner, decides that they cant be bothered with gumtree vivastreet or the cards in windows, I tried that but found out French polishing has nothing to do with tables....
So person checks out interweb and finds agency that does house cleans, they feel comfortable with this so call them up, person visits finds out what they are wanting and then finds a cleaner for them once they have signed, person provides checked cleaners and insurance etc.
Okay cleaner is sourced and introduced. they are happy. few months down the line they cancel, date is agreed, and then the final clean passes.
In area signing another client person sees cleaner going to house same day and time that she used to for clean. Hmm does a few other checks and find out that this is happening weekly.
Client had signed a contract stating that they would not use the cleaner after the contract had ended.
So spoke with a contract lawyer and am now in full possession of the relevant facts and will be pursuing said fees. Its a business and its not a free for all, if you want a cleaner then go find one, don't go using an agency and then thinking you can do what you want with a contract what ever it says.
simple terms...
Person looking for cleaner, decides that they cant be bothered with gumtree vivastreet or the cards in windows, I tried that but found out French polishing has nothing to do with tables....
So person checks out interweb and finds agency that does house cleans, they feel comfortable with this so call them up, person visits finds out what they are wanting and then finds a cleaner for them once they have signed, person provides checked cleaners and insurance etc.
Okay cleaner is sourced and introduced. they are happy. few months down the line they cancel, date is agreed, and then the final clean passes.
In area signing another client person sees cleaner going to house same day and time that she used to for clean. Hmm does a few other checks and find out that this is happening weekly.
Client had signed a contract stating that they would not use the cleaner after the contract had ended.
So spoke with a contract lawyer and am now in full possession of the relevant facts and will be pursuing said fees. Its a business and its not a free for all, if you want a cleaner then go find one, don't go using an agency and then thinking you can do what you want with a contract what ever it says.
was the contract fixed term (12 months) without a rolling extension? if so, I struggle to see how you've suffered any loss - you've been paid in full for the service you provided.
I'd think about this very carefully. You don't want to get a reputation as the cleaning business that sues its customers over trivial sums of money.
I'd think about this very carefully. You don't want to get a reputation as the cleaning business that sues its customers over trivial sums of money.
desolate said:
4x4Tyke said:
In general restraint of trade are not enforceable in common law.
Correctly drawn up they are.http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/stone/contracts-...
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Wednesday 30th November 22:23
4x4Tyke said:
have you actually read the link?first paragraph
"Contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie void under the common law, but can be
enforceable if:
the party imposing the restraint has a legitimate interest to protect; and
the restraint is reasonable in the context of protecting that interest"
and then loads of other stuff.
desolate said:
have you actually read the link?
first paragraph
"Contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie void under the common law, but can be
enforceable if:
the party imposing the restraint has a legitimate interest to protect; and
the restraint is reasonable in the context of protecting that interest"
and then loads of other stuff.
That is what I said.first paragraph
"Contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie void under the common law, but can be
enforceable if:
the party imposing the restraint has a legitimate interest to protect; and
the restraint is reasonable in the context of protecting that interest"
and then loads of other stuff.
The distinction is important, the burden of proof in on the OP to prove enforcement is reasonable and all the other stuff.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Wednesday 30th November 22:34
4x4Tyke said:
desolate said:
have you actually read the link?
first paragraph
"Contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie void under the common law, but can be
enforceable if:
the party imposing the restraint has a legitimate interest to protect; and
the restraint is reasonable in the context of protecting that interest"
and then loads of other stuff.
first paragraph
"Contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie void under the common law, but can be
enforceable if:
the party imposing the restraint has a legitimate interest to protect; and
the restraint is reasonable in the context of protecting that interest"
and then loads of other stuff.
I said above that "correctly drawn up they are".
How does that differ from what the above says?
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff