Forum Moderators: LifeinAsia
Unpaid invoice includes domain name renewal, some PFI, 1st quarter SEO fees.
He HAS paid invoices that were dated after this particular invoice - these invoices are for quarterly SEO fees.
We have warned him in writing that his site will be switched off if we haven't received payment within 7 days etc. So now we have switched him off and put 301 redirects on the web pages pointing to relevant pages of a project that we run in the same market sector.
He has signed our contract, which states that the domain name will revert to our ownership for us to use as we see fit.
However I don't really know if what we've done is legitimate since the domain name is still registered in his name (by us). Also, the fact that he has part-paid us is a worry. Would the invoices be seen cumulatively by law or one-by-one? That is, would it be safer to abort active SEO but not try to make use of domain name and past work done through 301s?
Thanks in advance! M
Clauses in Contract that deal with this subject:
[start]
"If any such amount remains unpaid 30 days after the due date, the Designer shall have the right by written notice to the Client to suspend the performance of the Services or to terminate this Agreement with immediate effect, at the Designer’s option. The Client shall be liable to indemnify the Designer against all costs and expenses incurred as a result of such suspension or termination and for any work carried out by the Designer prior to suspension or termination.
Where a domain name has been registered by the Designer on behalf of the Client, the Designer acknowledges and agrees that ownership of the domain name belongs to the Client, except where the Client fails to pay to the Designer any amount due for domain name renewal fees, in which event ownership of the domain name will transfer to the Designer and the domain name may be sold, leased or retained for the Designer’s own use."
[end]
This situation is in Scotland by the way.
What do you reckon? M
What do you reckon?
I reckon you should speak to a lawyer before the client's lawyer contacts you and sues for all your haggis money.
So now we have switched him off and put 301 redirects on the web pages pointing to relevant pages of a project that we run in the same market sector.
I believe you made a mistake. You should have spoken to a lawyer before removing or redirecting.
If you were legally protected, besides losing a client, what effect will this have on your reputation and future business propects? It will likely be interpreted as you lacking cash flow to a point where you have to resort to heavy-handed tactics for mere survival. Would you start a long-term relationship requiring strong trust with such a partner?
If you weren't protected, you're probably in as much trouble, though from legal channels.
With such a conflict, redirecting is an extreme escalation. Stopping SEO work while trying to get payment still limits your losses, and you can then try a lawyer's letter. Only when all other options are exhausted should you make it public that a client is not paying. If you can avoid making it public, you stand the chance of keeping a paying customer.
ncw164x
P.S. Scotland small claims court has some small differences to English small claims court. It is important that you realise that there is a difference and that the correct papers are filled in for England to England, Scotland to Scotland, England to Scotland and Scotland to England!
If you were to contact a lawyer in every such case you would go out of business due to Lawyers fees.
As this is in Scotland, UK contract law applies and withdrawal of services due to non-payment of fees is a well-established and legally safe option.
Pointing his domain elsewhere may be a problem though. Domain ownership disputes are a different ball game.
I would just withdraw hosting services.
It's totally depressing because it was a successful project so switching it off is agonizing :(
M
1) He is a Ltd (or PLC) company
2) He registers for bankruptcy
I once worked for a company which has a Scottish customer that refused to pay: We took him through the small claims court and he claimed he did not have enough money. Installments were agreed. He missed several payments and we contacted the small claims court again. Eventually we got a cheque. The small claims court had aranged for baliffs and auctioned his goods off to the value of the invoices, baliff costs and court fees.
It took a long time, but was worth the effort. Although in our case, it was someone well known in the area for ordering from catalogues and never paying.
I am not a solicitor and the only advice I can give is the experience I have had recently where a client didn't pay me.
I went down the small claims route, won the case as there was breach of contract and I'm receiving installments every month. This process from start (filling my claim in online) to finish (judge making final decision) took over a year and a half.
I did it for the money that was owed but also out of principle. The issue is not winning the case but getting the money.
I had a choice to switch the site off. I decided against it. I couldn't afford to defend a 'loss of business' law suit.
We gave our client every opportunity to continue dealing with us - we offered monthly terms, 'share of success' billing, and a variety of other helpful options. He didn't communicate, and you can't do business with someone who won't communicate because that's what business is ... communication.
So we did some housekeeping and got rid of him because he was a liability to us.
Millie
