This blog post title would be better worded "small business owner is surprised by contract term he signed up for".
I mean, it does say it right there in black and white in the Supplier Contract that he signed up for ....
Section 3 CCS - Supplier contract, Reporting Period: "The Supplier must complete an MI Report and return it to CCS by the fifth Working Day of every month during the Term and thereafter until all transactions relating to any Buyer Contract have permanently ceased. If at any point there is a period of a month where no reportable transactions occur, then the Supplier must make a declaration to CCS confirming no business has been conducted, in place of data submission."
At no point did the author suggest that small businesses were surprised by this requirement - just that it's pointless bureaucracy, which it is.
And that's especially ironic since the whole point of the "Low Value Purchase System" is to make selling to government less time-consuming for small businesses!
> At no point did the author suggest that small businesses were surprised by this requirement - just that it's pointless bureaucracy, which it is.
Well, they are complaining about having to login monthly to file a zero report.
Yes, I agree its bureaucratic, but that's no excuse for not reading the damn contract !
If they read the contract they signed up to, perhaps they would have decided "fuck that" and not bothered signing up in the first place.
P.S. Reading contracts is a good thing, because I bet this guy also missed all the juicy indemnity and liability clauses, some of which are unlimited for "interesting" things such as unlimited indemnity for third-party Intellectual Property claims against the government related to what you supplied them:
How do you know they didn't read the contract and know exactly what would be required of them?
Just because it's in the contract doesn't mean you can't complain if it's a stupid waste of time.
> Just because it's in the contract doesn't mean you can't complain if it's a stupid waste of time.
For a start they would be better of complaining to their MP instead of ranting about it on the internet. At least there is a remote chance their MP is in a position to do something about it.
Letter to MP: one letter to MP, nothing to show for it.
Complain on blog: several letters to MPs of different districts, all of whom can now say that their constituents are writing to them and complaining about the same thing.
I don’t know the inner workings of Parliament but this is pretty basic for any remotely democratic government system. One person who cares a lot is less valuable than a lot of people who only care a little.
Bringing more widespread awareness to niche issues most people aren't aware of is, by some infinitesimally small percentage perhaps, more likely to have an impact on bureacracy than trying to act alone. Or maybe they know things aren't going to change, and are complaining on their personal blog to have a vent, which they are perfectly well within their rights to do. Just like you're allowed to complain about their complaining blog post, and I'm allowed to complain about your complaining comments about their complaining blog post. I think your complaining comments about their complaining blog post are rather more annoying and less interesting to read than their complaining blog post, but I suppose you'll probably think my complaining comment about your complaining comments about their annoying blog post are more annoying still :)
Terence Eden's blog is very influential in the world of the UK technology civil service.
Writing about it there is a lot more likely to have a positive result than writing to his MP.
The author is a former civil servant. I think it's safe to assume he knows that writing to his MP is an option...