• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Supervision, Direction, and Control

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Cheers guys. I assumed as much. I can't post the "agreement" contract here as I don't want to be naming and shaming anyone. But I guess if you are asked to sign something like this you'd know exactly which agency I'm talking about.

    There were other things in the "agreement" which I found somewhat distasteful like lock-in clauses, i.e. Once I get a contract via them and that contract is finished, I can't get a new contract with that client via any other agency for a period of up to 12 months. I'd have to go back to this agency. May be if I stretch the definition of the word "reasonable", I could say it is reasonable to ask for something like this for a contract with a very small company that doesn't really hire more that one or two people a year. But this agency works (or claims to) with investment banks!

    I guess I'll leave things there then.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by pscx View Post
      Cheers guys. I assumed as much. I can't post the "agreement" contract here as I don't want to be naming and shaming anyone. But I guess if you are asked to sign something like this you'd know exactly which agency I'm talking about.

      There were other things in the "agreement" which I found somewhat distasteful like lock-in clauses, i.e. Once I get a contract via them and that contract is finished, I can't get a new contract with that client via any other agency for a period of up to 12 months. I'd have to go back to this agency. May be if I stretch the definition of the word "reasonable", I could say it is reasonable to ask for something like this for a contract with a very small company that doesn't really hire more that one or two people a year. But this agency works (or claims to) with investment banks!

      I guess I'll leave things there then.
      Six months in normal and has been enforced in the past. Unless the client wholly dismisses the agency and does not deal with them, which means that the agency is no longer able to provide you with an interface to the client; as such, you are not denying the agency money.
      The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

      Comment


        #13
        That handcuff is unfair and unreasonable so isn't worth the paper it's written on. I'd take no notice of that.
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
          That handcuff is unfair and unreasonable so isn't worth the paper it's written on. I'd take no notice of that.
          Regarding this clause I always wonder what crystal ball the agency are using to realise that 6 or 9 months after you finished with them you are back at the same client and they want you to pony up some £££ as compo, they would have to be stalking you, in my experience once you've finished a contract it's sayonara and onto the next.

          Comment


            #15
            The handcuff clause is almost certainly not enforceable.

            Generally handcuff clauses are a deterrent, and as long as you don't actually switch agencies mid-contract or perhaps at renewal with a fair offer, then really nothing to worry about.

            They won't prevent you coming back a few weeks after your contract has expired on different project.
            I'm alright Jack

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by SlipTheJab View Post
              Regarding this clause I always wonder what crystal ball the agency are using to realise that 6 or 9 months after you finished with them you are back at the same client and they want you to pony up some £££ as compo, they would have to be stalking you, in my experience once you've finished a contract it's sayonara and onto the next.
              It's mostly used as a way of keeping them involved when extensions happen.

              Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm way off, but I reckon most agents are busy enough without doing random "year later" spot checks on contractors.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by jmo21 View Post
                It's mostly used as a way of keeping them involved when extensions happen.

                Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm way off, but I reckon most agents are busy enough without doing random "year later" spot checks on contractors.
                Correct on the first point.

                Six months has proved to be what's generally enforceable and imo is reasonable. Each contract's a negotiation; they'd rather drop 12 months to 6 than lose the gig.
                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
                  It may also have been included so that there can be no possibility of debt transfer under the new legislation on tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses
                  I think you mate have hit the nail on the head with that, my thoughts exactly.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X