Hi everyone.
I am an IT contractor, operating inside IR35 legislation for a client. The relationship is me -> Umbrella -> Agency -> client.
I accepted a role in December 2025 which was until 31st March 2026. Unfortunately due to client onboarding taking forever I couldn't actually start until 3rd March, but that was ok by me. I knew the contract was a 220 day working contract withing the company's financial year, so I was pretty happy with the constraints as laid out by the Agency.
Fast forward to contract renewal - I was given a contract to sign by the Umbrella company with no changes to any contract terms. Therefore as far as I was concerned, everything (crucially the 220 day cap) remained the same. This wasnt specifically called out in the contract wording, but I knew the role was 220 days as dictated by the agency. I signed this contract as provided by the Umbrella company to enable me to work in the new FY, although my contract was limited 1st April to 30th November (which is pretty standard to be on a shorter contract term so didn't personally bother me).
Now fast forward to 20th April, a representative from the client blurts out in an all staff meeting that you're all limited to 210 days across the FY. I naturally say "ummm, no I am not" he says yes you are and it can't go anyway. I think I have the last laugh because I know that my contract doesn't state any limitation on working days. I query this to both the agency and the umbrella asking why I dont know about this. After a few days I get an email asking me to log on and sign the new contract. Immediately my spidey sense starts tingling.
I log on and the Umbrella has terminated my contract on 22nd (originally effective from 12th which I forced them to correct) but then issue me a new contract on new terms. However, they basically made a massive mistake and should have included these new terms on my original contract renewal, but didn't.
I'm now in a massive 3 way argument on multiple fronts. As far as I was concerned I was on a specific contract with no restriction on working days in my ~8 month contract. Now on the revised terms I am limited to working 140 days max (which is 2/3 of 210 in 2/3 of the year so I get why they have this figure), but it wasnt in my original contract. If I had wanted to work every single working day in that 8 month period, I was able to provided I didnt go over 220 working days in the FY. That as far as I am concerned was my contract.
However, the Umbrella terminated it effective immediately which is against the contract terms because I technically was due a month's notice. I was originally mad about now being restricted on the number of days across the year, but on reflection I came to the conclusion they could have cancelled the contract following the break clause of a month's notice. But considering that they terminated immediately are they (the Umbrella) liable for the month's notice period? They have admitted its their liability in email but they have tried to claim they havent cancelled the contracts and that the terms between the umbrella and the agency were the terms that governed my contract even though I had no idea they existed. And nor where they in my contract.
Do I have a case to pursue against the Umbrella given they have massively messed up here?