Is a signature on a timesheet as good as cash?

[Ripped-Off]

Most agency timesheets for the supply of labour contain terms stating that a signature by the client is an acceptance that the work performed by the agency labour is/was satisfactory and the hours claimed are correct. However, what should happen in the event that following signature by the client's representative, the hours on the sheet are later found to be excessive, the work defective or the agency labour lacking the requisite qualification and skills requested by the client.

For monitoring working hours most places have some system of recording attendance (turnstiles, swipe cards, signing in book etc) but the data may not be accessible at the time the sheet is signed.

Using the obiter of the judge in JDM Accord v DEFRA [2004] is it possible to reduce the value of timesheets which contain general errors such as not allowing for deductible meal breaks or were fraudulently produced? An agency worker who claims for 60 hours when other evidence has recorded only 40 hours is committing a fraud isn't he, even if the client's representative has foolishly signed it?

In such circumstances, would a client be justified in reducing the value of a subsequent invoice knowing that the agency had already paid the invoiced amount to the agency worker?

[charitynjw]

Re: Is a signature on a timesheet as good as cash?

Hi Ripped-off

AfaIk, in relation to agency workers there will be 2 contracts, agency/client & agency/worker.
If that is so, any issues the client has should be addressed to the agency (esp with regard to the quality of work & qualification required).
Some info here - https://www.gov.uk/agency-workers-your-rights/pay

[Ripped-Off]

Re: Is a signature on a timesheet as good as cash?

Thanks charitynjw but you might have misunderstood me.

I was leaning more towards the contract between the client and the agency rather than the agency and the worker.

Normally the client verifies the timesheet by signing it, the worker submits this to the agency, the agency pays the worker (normally after a week or so) and the client then pays the agency a few weeks later depending on their payment terms.

My query was concerned with a fraud by the worker which was not spotted by the client, who had signed the timesheet, which was then presented to and paid by the agency, only for the client to later realise the fraudulent act when it had the opportunity to collect and interpret the attendance data. The client may then then want to pay the agency less than the agency had paid the worker.

Hope that makes sense?

[charitynjw]

Re: Is a signature on a timesheet as good as cash?

In which case the client sorts this with the agency.
There may be terms in their contract which allow for this.