more of a legal rather than financial Q

[uky kozak]

If within a contract it stipulates that you get paid, when the client pays the agency (my advice is never to sign that type of contract), is there an actual time limit or reasonable time limit by law, whereby the agency must pay the contractor regardless if they have been paid? - Im guessing this would be very open? - Im just wondering if there is a law here protecting the contractor against something happening?

Lets use this scenario as an example:

Company hires Agency to find candidate
Agency sources a contrator (payment clause)
contractor fullfills the contract
contractor is still owed £XX amount of monies
Company has not paid agency
4 months has passed no monies received because company has not paid

Reason I ask is that twice I have received this type of clause and refused to sign, so was just wondering if the contractor is protected in some way?

[northernladuk]

You read the opt in/opt out thread? That should answer your question.

It's a sticky in the business section.

[TheFaQQer]

Reason I ask is that twice I have received this type of clause and refused to sign, so was just wondering if the contractor is protected in some way?

If you don't opt out, then you must be paid for the work that you do.

If you opt out and sign a contract with this kind of clause in it, you run the risk that the agency never gets paid and so neither do you. On the plus side, that looks good for the BETs, so that's all good then.

[uky kozak]

Yep that sort of closes this discussion. Moral of the story is yes you can quite happily sign a contract with that clause just dont sign the Opt-Out.

but still I would never sign a contract with that clause...

Thx

[TykeMerc]

Yep that sort of closes this discussion. Moral of the story is yes you can quite happily sign a contract with that clause just dont sign the Opt-Out.

but still I would never sign a contract with that clause...

Thx

Indeed it's bad business to accept that kind of clause.

[sal]

Indeed it's bad business to accept that kind of clause.

Bad business is passing on opportunity to source income for YourCo based on lack of understanding and business acumen. Making statement like yours, 2 posts after someone explained that such a clause is irrelevant is embarrassing.

If you don't opt out then such a clause is mute, yes it might take some effort to get the money out of the agency but the clause in the contract has no effect whatsoever.

[DiscoStu]

Bad business is passing on opportunity to source income for YourCo based on lack of understanding and business acumen. Making statement like yours, 2 posts after someone explained that such a clause is irrelevant is embarrassing.

If you don't opt out then such a clause is mute, yes it might take some effort to get the money out of the agency but the clause in the contract has no effect whatsoever.

moot

[TheFaQQer]

Yep that sort of closes this discussion. Moral of the story is yes you can quite happily sign a contract with that clause just dont sign the Opt-Out.

but still I would never sign a contract with that clause...

Thx

If you have the clause in the contract and things go wrong, you face a potentially long-winded and expensive court battle to show that the agency regulations apply to you, and you weren't opted out.

If you don't have the clause in the contract then it becomes a much easier battle to fight.

[TykeMerc]

Bad business is passing on opportunity to source income for YourCo based on lack of understanding and business acumen. Making statement like yours, 2 posts after someone explained that such a clause is irrelevant is embarrassing.

If you don't opt out then such a clause is mute, yes it might take some effort to get the money out of the agency but the clause in the contract has no effect whatsoever.

I couldn't disagree more, giving the client an easy excuse to delay or deny payment by blaming the actions of a third party you have no control of is not good business, it's utterly stupid. You've no way to get to the truth without a judge getting involved either.
I would never sign away what amounts to my right to sue the client that I have a contract with for outstanding payment. Opted IN it's irrelevant as the clause can't be there, but Opted Out (which can be obligatory to being put forwards in the 1st place) the clause is unacceptable.
I don't feel at all embarrassed by my position on this. (Oh it's a MOOT point incidentally not MUTE)

[BolshieBastard]

Agencies such a Rullion, Manchester will not submit you for roles if you state you will not be opting out.

Your choice is to either walk or be submitted. Not an easy choice when the market is 'competitive.'