Handcuff - is 12 months unacceptable by law?

[SueEllen]

Don't you start.

You are aware these threads are searchable from Google?

So it's a good idea to write an answer so a newbie doesn't have to ask the question again and again and again....

[LondonManc]

You are aware these threads are searchable from Google?

So it's a good idea to write an answer so a newbie doesn't have to ask the question again and again and again....

It hasn't particularly stopped them in that past though.

[SlipTheJab]

To the OP how will the original agency ever know, you are a long distant memory to them, fill your boots!

[LondonManc]

To the OP how will the original agency ever know, you are a long distant memory to them, fill your boots!

Correct. As I said/tried to say () earlier, the 12 month clause has proved unenforceable based on previous threads here, so the clause would be ignored in a court case rather than reduced to 6 months (which have been upheld and imo are reasonable - the agent has found the client/contractor match and deserve their reward).

[northernladuk]

Correct. As I said/tried to say () earlier, the 12 month clause has proved unenforceable based on previous threads here, so the clause would be ignored in a court case rather than reduced to 6 months (which have been upheld and imo are reasonable - the agent has found the client/contractor match and deserve their reward).

Which is a good start, but to the OP, once the agent starts bullying the client and their legal teams get involved it could quite possibly be the case that it becomes too high a risk and they walk away from it.

Best approach IMO is not just assume off the cuff that you are in the clear because of the legal precedent. Just take every situation on a case by case basis and see how it pans out. Sometimes it will fold at the first email and it's happy days, sometimes it will get in to a protracted argument between the two agents and the client which doesn't always end well and all the handbagging between those two extremes.

What this whole thread has missed so far is the fair and reasonable test though.

For a handcuff to even be considered (forgetting timescales for now) is that it has to be fair and reasonable, i.e. the agent has to be able to prove a tangible loss. Until they do the handcuff can't even be invoked, let alone after whatever time period. An example of this is where you worked for Agent A at Client A. You leave, Agent B offers you a gig at Client A. Agent A is NOT representing that role and is not eligible to do so for one reason or another. Agent A cannot use the handcuff as they cannot lose any money as they are not representing the gig.
So in the OP's situation, if the new agent wants to place you and the old agent isn't in the running then fill your boots. The handcuff is invalid.

If, however, you find out agent A is indeed offering the gig then it all gets very complicated. Some clients will allow the original agent dibs however long and pull you off agent B and back to Agent A. In cases like this Agent B will know this is the score and be a bit peeved but not put a fight up. A certain financial client somewhere around Bradford does this.
If, in the worst case, it's a straight race between A and B and agent A get's wind he's going to complain to the client and point out lots of clauses, the client will then have to make a call on whether they can be bothered if it's work the risk and so on.

IMO You can't dismiss a handcuff situation outright just because the 12th months isn't enforceable... There is a lot more to it and a lot more that can go wrong for you enforceable or not......