Agency contract does not mention their client

[alexmc]

I can imagine contracting to a software company and receiving a contract which does not mention the software company's clients.
However is that ever right for an agency contract for IT services to not mention the client that they are for?

I have received a contract from an agency which rings warning bells in many ways. In particular:

1) It does not mention the client at all - or rather calls themselves "the client".
Timesheets to be signed by the agency, not the real client. (Verbally told this was not the case)
Work to be done at the agency's offices (false)
Work to be done on agency supplied equipment. (false)
No compete with the agency. (How do we determine this?! )
2) No Statement of Work or description of services
3) If they think the services are sub-par then I have to either fix them for free, or have money deducted from my next invoice. No third party check as to quality of the services. I guess this is them trying to avoid IR35 but since there is no definition of the services then they could just claim anything and I would have to work for free!
4) No allowed substitution, even if agreed that the substitute is qualified.
5) 8 hours a day, for five days a week specified. (Suggests MOO to me)
6) Contract is a deed, rather than a contract

I am trying to discuss this with the agency because I don't think this is what either of us want, but their initial response is "Well lots of other people accept it".

Alex

[courtg9000]

I can imagine contracting to a software company and receiving a contract which does not mention the software company's clients.
However is that ever right for an agency contract for IT services to not mention the client that they are for?

I have received a contract from an agency which rings warning bells in many ways. In particular:

1) It does not mention the client at all - or rather calls themselves "the client".
Timesheets to be signed by the agency, not the real client. (Verbally told this was not the case)
Work to be done at the agency's offices (false)
Work to be done on agency supplied equipment. (false)
No compete with the agency. (How do we determine this?! )
2) No Statement of Work or description of services
3) If they think the services are sub-par then I have to either fix them for free, or have money deducted from my next invoice. No third party check as to quality of the services. I guess this is them trying to avoid IR35 but since there is no definition of the services then they could just claim anything and I would have to work for free!
4) No allowed substitution, even if agreed that the substitute is qualified.
5) 8 hours a day, for five days a week specified. (Suggests MOO to me)
6) Contract is a deed, rather than a contract

I am trying to discuss this with the agency because I don't think this is what either of us want, but their initial response is "Well lots of other people accept it".

Alex

It sounds fishy from here.
Have they told you who the client is? Does the client check out?
Does the agency have "previous"?
Personally speaking this sounds like a world of hell and one I would steer well clear of.

[LondonManc]

It sounds fishy from here.
Have they told you who the client is? Does the client check out?
Does the agency have "previous"?
Personally speaking this sounds like a world of hell and one I would steer well clear of.

On top of this, I'd want to have the contract corrected to reflect the things I'd been told at the start.
Leading on from that, what's the IR35 status of the contract? Have you had it independently confirmed by QDOS or similar?

[northernladuk]

Sounds like you are just a worker for the agency, like supply teachers etc.

Are you sure you've not completely misunderstood the engagement? I'd speak to the agency to explain the situation. I think you're expecting one thing and not got it so it's thrown you.

[Lance]

I can imagine contracting to a software company and receiving a contract which does not mention the software company's clients.
However is that ever right for an agency contract for IT services to not mention the client that they are for?

I have received a contract from an agency which rings warning bells in many ways. In particular:

1) It does not mention the client at all - or rather calls themselves "the client".
Timesheets to be signed by the agency, not the real client. (Verbally told this was not the case)
Work to be done at the agency's offices (false)
Work to be done on agency supplied equipment. (false)
No compete with the agency. (How do we determine this?! )
2) No Statement of Work or description of services
3) If they think the services are sub-par then I have to either fix them for free, or have money deducted from my next invoice. No third party check as to quality of the services. I guess this is them trying to avoid IR35 but since there is no definition of the services then they could just claim anything and I would have to work for free!
4) No allowed substitution, even if agreed that the substitute is qualified.
5) 8 hours a day, for five days a week specified. (Suggests MOO to me)
6) Contract is a deed, rather than a contract

I am trying to discuss this with the agency because I don't think this is what either of us want, but their initial response is "Well lots of other people accept it".

Alex

In your first bit you talk about a client, a software company and an agency. I'm assuming for this yourLTD ->agency -> software company -> end clients
It's not unusual for you to be contracted to the software company rather than their end client. And they may want you to work on different client projects.

Your points
1) if the contract has the agency as client then they are the client. Forget the earlier chain. It's not usual, but also plausible. the agency may well be offering a 'managed service' to the software company. The other questions in this point are correct (not false) if the agency is the client. what makes you say false?
2) common but not ideal
3) standard
4) at least it's not a sham clause. You need to rely on SDC and lack of MOO
5) this is fine. It may just be to cap the billing so you don't bill 7 days a week. The conext in the contract is key though. Get it reviewed.
6) sorry. No idea. Get it reviewed. I have had a 'contract' that was actually a set of Ts&Cs and a schedule. This was reviewed by QDOS and all fine.

Final point.... Agencies are usually inflexible. Do you need the work? Can you afford to play hardball in the current market conditions?

[alexmc]

In your first bit you talk about a client, a software company and an agency. I'm assuming for this yourLTD ->agency -> software company -> end clients
It's not unusual for you to be contracted to the software company rather than their end client. And they may want you to work on different client projects.

Your points
1) if the contract has the agency as client then they are the client. Forget the earlier chain. It's not usual, but also plausible. the agency may well be offering a 'managed service' to the software company. The other questions in this point are correct (not false) if the agency is the client. what makes you say false?
....
Final point.... Agencies are usually inflexible. Do you need the work? Can you afford to play hardball in the current market conditions?

The scenario is yourLTD ->agency -> end client

The contract feels like it is quite different to what I have been told. I have not seen any evidence or discussion of any kind of managed service.

Thanks to everyone who replied or just read the post. I will try to respond individually to everyone.

The big question is whether I need the work. No. not really. It would be nice to be working, but not if communication is already breaking down.

[NotAllThere]

I am trying to discuss this with the agency because I don't think this is what either of us want, but their initial response is "Well lots of other people accept it".

If I'd had 50p for every time I've heard that, I'd have £6.25. (One time I cut him off half way).