Agency dodgy dealings

[TheFaQQer]

Given that everything any agency does revolves around them making the most amount of money at the least amount of cost, what makes you think that they would be happy to be embroiled in multiple court cases over a significant amount of time at great expense (both in time and thus money) to them?

Because they would win, they would get costs awarded, they would set a precedent (assuming the right court), it would send a message to the contractors who are stupid enough to think "I'll flip off the agency and it will be fine" that if they break their contracts they get exactly what they deserve, and it will scare the offending clients into sticking to their contracts.

[billybiro]

Because they would win, they would get costs awarded, they would set a precedent (assuming the right court), it would send a message to the contractors who are stupid enough to think "I'll flip off the agency and it will be fine" that if they break their contracts they get exactly what they deserve, and it will scare the offending clients into sticking to their contracts.

OP wrote:

Client is also not happy that the margin appears massive and not 15% as they agreed with agent. Its all possibly going to get legal.

After shenanigans like the above, you don't think the agent might back down when the client files a counter claim due to the agent breaking their contract with the client?

[sal]

That's why i try to ascertain how much the client is paying for me as soon as possible. Never direct, but usually in a couple of months into a contract i know how much the agency cut is. This helps me deal with tulip like the one in the OP and gives me leverage for potential rate re-negotiation at extension. Or if the agency cut is really big i would just call the pimp and threaten to serve my notice if the greedy ba***rd doesn't re-negotiate on the spot.

Also i try to negotiate rate increases with the client first, rather than asking the pimp do do it on my behalf. As i'm in much better position to explain to the client the reasoning behind that (increased load, more and/or different tech involved, original rate being below market rate etc.). Leaving it to the pimp to negotiate on your behalf is asking for trouble such as in the OP.

Edit:

Also i believe name and shame is in order in this case, as tulip like this can't be isolated to a single agent without the knowledge of his superiors if we are talking about such large margins. So knowing the name of the offending agency will help us avoid it if possible in the future.

[DiscoStu]

OP wrote:


After shenanigans like the above, you don't think the agent might back down when the client files a counter claim due to the agent breaking their contract with the client?

Eh? The client files a counter-claim against the agent for breaking their contract with the client?

That doesn't make any sense.

[TheFaQQer]

OP wrote:


After shenanigans like the above, you don't think the agent might back down when the client files a counter claim due to the agent breaking their contract with the client?

If they have broken the contract, then if the client wants to pursue that course of action, then that is exactly what they should do. If they have broken the contract, then that is the correct remedy - to pursue a more egregious breach of contract would not be the sensible course of action.

If they have not broken the contract, then there isn't much they can do apart from moan.

[billybiro]

Eh? The client files a counter-claim against the agent for breaking their contract with the client?

That doesn't make any sense.

Yes it does, although I was wrong to say counter-claim. It's a separate claim based off a separate contract.

Client <---contract1---> Agent <---contract2---> Contractor

If contractor breaks their contract (contract2 - which is with the agent), agent claims against contractor. Agent is in the right, and will probably win, but (from the OP's story) agent has meanwhile broken their contract with client (contract1). Client files separate claim against agent. Agent is now fighting two claims - one which they'll win and one which they'll lose. Net result is zero and a whole lot of wasted time and effort (and therefore money) for the agent.

Agents may be devoid of scruples but they're not stupid. In a situation like this, they're likely to simply back down on all fronts. It won't be without some namecalling, flinging threats around etc., but they'll back down as they know to fight to the end would be a pyrrhic victory.

[TheFaQQer]

Yes it does, although I was wrong to say counter-claim. It's a separate claim based off a separate contract.

Client <---contract1---> Agent <---contract2---> Contractor

If contractor breaks their contract (contract2 - which is with the agent), agent claims against contractor. Agent is in the right, and will probably win, but (from the OP's story) agent has meanwhile broken their contract with client (contract1). Client files separate claim against agent. Agent is now fighting two claims - one which they'll win and one which they'll lose. Net result is zero and a whole lot of wasted time and effort (and therefore money) for the agent.

Agents may be devoid of scruples but they're not stupid. In a situation like this, they're likely to simply back down on all fronts. It won't be without some namecalling, flinging threats around etc., but they'll back down as they know to fight to the end would be a pyrrhic victory.

If the client is going to take the contractor on direct, then the client is also very likely to be in breach of contract1 with the agency, which would be used in a counter-claim if the client tried to sue the agency. So, a nil-game on contract1 (assuming a court decides that the breaches are of significant worth, which I doubt they would), and the agency wins on contract2.

[Taita]

Fairly new to this. Been contracting about two years.

Worked out that a lot of agencies are a little dodgy but recent events take the biscuit. Im always one for if rate is good for you dont worry about but this really is bad.
Just wondered how best way to handle it.

I've always thought agent was a bit of liar especially about the cut he was taking. Alway told me his margin was slim etc.
Asked for an increase at one renewal and although I got some, he told me client wasnt happy/had to re-do budgets etc which I've since found out was a lie.

Anyway, turns out agent has been playing contractors and client off against each other. Agent has been blaming client for rate cuts and dodgy deals which was all made up, and now client has got wind and is not happy about it. In one instance, agency knocked a chunk off, blamed the client for cuts and kept if for himself. For all contractors, client though rate was the same but its now appears to depend on how many lies agent could get past to cut the rate.

Client is also not happy that the margin appears massive and not 15% as they agreed with agent. Its all possibly going to get legal.

Must admit I don't like seeing client ripped off like this. The rate I get is OK, but if the client is paying a massive rate its unfair especialy if agent is using them in their lies.

Waiting to see what happens here to be honest. Any suggestions or anyone seen this sort of thing before?

"Client is also not happy that the margin appears massive and not 15% as they agreed with agent. Its all possibly going to get legal."

When you are having a beer with your line manager who wants to keep you sweet.....he will probably sympathise with your gripes.

'Get legal'????......the reality is that, unless you are working for a small outfit where your line manager also decides the business policies of the company, nothing will happen to the agent or his contract. in larger companies, HR/Procurement hear gripes all the time but they pay little heed until the master contract is up for renewal and not much even then.

If he gets sued for misleading contractors about rates and margins it will make industry history (IT contracting is roughly 45 years old)!

[tractor]

...

Yes it does, although I was wrong to say counter-claim. It's a separate claim based off a separate contract.

Client <---contract1---> Agent <---contract2---> Contractor

If contractor breaks their contract (contract2 - which is with the agent), agent claims against contractor. Agent is in the right, and will probably win, but (from the OP's story) agent has meanwhile broken their contract with client (contract1). Client files separate claim against agent. Agent is now fighting two claims - one which they'll win and one which they'll lose. Net result is zero and a whole lot of wasted time and effort (and therefore money) for the agent.

Agents may be devoid of scruples but they're not stupid. In a situation like this, they're likely to simply back down on all fronts. It won't be without some namecalling, flinging threats around etc., but they'll back down as they know to fight to the end would be a pyrrhic victory.

Your view is too simplistic. Many of us are forced into contracts that provide compensation to the agent for any losses caused by the contractor's action (or inaction, if appropriate). In which case, if the contractor caused the agent to break it's contract with the client, the contractor could be held liable for any losses where the agent loses an action brought by the client. This would of course, include legal costs for both actions if the contractor and the agent lost. That makes it a 0,0,-2 situation.

[mankyspanky]

To a certain extent I agree with what a lot of you say. Tescos dont tell you how much they buy cornflakes for before they sell them to you after all.

BUT, in this case, I think agent has gone too far. Yes I worked out they are all liars and everyones in business to make money.
But lying to both parties, and hoping they dont speak to each other? Misrepresenting another party (i.e. agency says client said this when in fact it was made up) is a bit much. Lying about the cut to client is also a bit off - even though its their fault really if its not contractual (now that would be fun!).

Yes to be fair agency has done well and made a quick buck but when client works out the score its not going to do much for long term relationship.

I know that ultimately nothing is going to happen. BUT at least now I know the score. In the event of renewal I can tell agent that the parties over.

Yes I could pull a strop and hand in notice now and demand the agent stop being greedy. But that could go badly. After all, as someone said, all client wants is someone there doing the work not moaning about money.