Why do agencies insist on LTD companies only having one director

[SueEllen]

They may have been stung in the past. You could almost imagine the scenario of some rate-hunting twunt trying to jump ship early by claiming that the contract isn't enforceable because while they signed the contract, they weren't the majority shareholder.

Doesn't work like that fortunately.

Even junior employees can be given the authority to negotiate and sign contracts on behalf of the directors and shareholders in a company.

Years ago when I worked in bank's import dept I instigated all companies having to re-approve their signatories. There had been a few business customers from all company sizes who had allowed a office manager or secretary (not a company secretary) to approve loans just to get the paperwork done. There had obviously been some falling out as a few of the managing directors rang us before I did that to tell us not to approve the loans if certain people signed the forms.

There has been a court case quite recently along a similar vein when a company tried to get out of a telecoms contract claiming that.

[LondonManc]

Doesn't work like that fortunately.

Even junior employees can be given the authority to negotiate and sign contracts on behalf of the directors and shareholders in a company.

Years ago when I worked in bank's import dept I instigated all companies having to re-approve their signatories. There had been a few business customers from all company sizes who had allowed a office manager or secretary (not a company secretary) to approve loans just to get the paperwork done. There had obviously been some falling out as a few of the managing directors rang us before I did that to tell us not to approve the loans if certain people signed the forms.

There has been a court case quite recently along a similar vein when a company tried to get out of a telecoms contract claiming that.

I didn't know whether they could or not, I was just saying that you could imagine someone trying it on; they probably don't want similar situations arising. I stand by my earlier answer that it's to avoid being complicit in tax-dodging.

[fidot]

Because they really want to be signing a contract with you personally (i.e. the disguised employee that's doing the work). If you're the sole director and 100% owner then that's as good as the same thing

Agree that is probably their thinking.

an agreement from somebody else's company or that's part-controlled by somebody else could cause some issues.

However, it is flawed as this is what they do every time the deal with a brolly