Agents asking for sole representation

[psychocandy]

One agent I know, gets 3 candidates puts them forward , he then takes out the opposition by getting 15 next best guys to agreed to be sole represented and files the CV's in the bin

I've heard of this too. Easy way to take out the competition.

[TheCoconutDog]

Add to this that proof of submission must be provided within 72 hours otherwise the agreement will be void.

What evidence do you think is acceptable "proof"?

[jmo21]

I had a situation back in my permie days when a guy said "trust me, I only work with all the top companies" and promptly fired my CV off to loads of companies without asking permission, discussing specific roles, etc. Even when I asked him who he'd sent it to, he refused to tell me (which probably meant he'd actually sent it nowhere). In the mean time, I've got loads of other agents calling about roles, and I'm having to tell them "I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know if I'm being represented for this role by another agent because of Mr Jerkwad Spam Machine."

Nobody walked away from that looking very professional.

I'd have let the other agents, and tell them to include "should you have received this CV from Mr JSM, they had no right to send it, and do not represent my client".

[dty]

I'd have let the other agents, and tell them to include "should you have received this CV from Mr JSM, they had no right to send it, and do not represent my client".

That's broadly what I ended up having to do. Still doesn't look professional. Many employers just walk away at that point because they don't want to get into the fight - assuming you can even persuade the agent to submit you on that basis in the first place.

[Eirikur]

What evidence do you think is acceptable "proof"?

It doesn't matter as they never provide this proof anyway, but it gives me the possibility to use another agency after three days if I don't hear anything back.

[mrv]

I usually send them an email saying that I agree to them solely representing me.
Why wouldn't you do it?

Had a situation about this recently. Agency A asked for sole rep, agency B was unhappy after learning about it, and it would appear the B had much closer ties with the client, offering to set up interviews etc, while A just called a couple of times saying "they're still waiting for the feedback". In the end I didn't get the gig. So it would seem I would have had better chances if I didn't agree to sole rep by A, or at least set a tight timeframe "to deliver or get off the pot". That's why I will be (I hope) a bit wiser next time.

[Ltd]

Add to this that proof of submission must be provided within 72 hours otherwise the agreement will be void.

What sort of proof would you expect? You in copy of CV submission email? I doubt an agent will be happy to share his client email.

[rootsnall]

What sort of proof would you expect? You in copy of CV submission email? I doubt an agent will be happy to share his client email.

As Eirikur said, they never send any proof, but it gives you some basis to send another CV if you think the first one isn't getting anywhere. I think with all these scenarios you just have to make a judgement each time depending on how much you trust the agent. It's impossible to get it right every time, the one rule is no matter how tempting it is never let an agent send a CV without naming the client Co. I got a contract years ago were agent A had submitted my CV at £X, nothing happened for quite a few weeks, agent B came along and submitted my CV to the same company at £X+50 ( I did mention an earlier CV from weeks previously), the client Co contacted both agents saying they wanted to interview me via agent A at the lower rate. It was a bit tulip all round, but the end result was I got the contract at the lower rate with the original agent. A bit of abuse from agent B but in the end it suited me to take the contract, a bit miffed it was at the lower rate but nothing I could do, the only other option was walk away.

[SueEllen]

It doesn't matter as they never provide this proof anyway, but it gives me the possibility to use another agency after three days if I don't hear anything back.

It may not be the original agency's fault but you may as well ask the other agency whether you have been put forward as someone mentioned a similar sounding role to you.

Some of the contracts where I've helped recruit others there has been a party involved either external party or even HR who has just sat on random CVs for no good reason - there has been no issue with rates or anything else.

It's only when I've told the client that we need CVs with the actual right skills not the tulip that has been given to us that they have been released to us.

As a result we always have lost candidates as they have secured roles elsewhere.

[tractor]

....

One of my recent roles went something like this....

Agent A calls and discusses a role which was quite specific to my sector experience and requires my authorisation which I give subject to 48hr introduction etc etc.

Agent B calls next day with same role and is surprised when I have already been put forward by Agent A because Agent B has sole rights with the client. I question this and Agent B is really up front, calls the client to ensure that they are happy for Agent B to provide the evidence and Agent B responds with a complete email chain with the client expressing as much surprise as Agent B that Agent A are touting business that they have no right to.

I called Agent A, revoked my permission told them what I thought of them and surprisingly, never heard from them again. Even better, I got the role with Agent B and started the following Monday for 6 months.

Goes to show, some agents are awful and some are decent(ish) and not all clients are quick to disengage from the fight.