What are people's thoughts on this?

[LaHombre]

Hi - apologies for this being my first post, ordinarily I would not talk business before pleasantries, but needs must.

I've been contracting for 16 years, the last few contracts have been from my Ltd company direct to client, so I have been out of the loop with agents for a while.

I was called today from a CV posted on Jobsite - role was a good fit, agent was open with the client name and sent me over a spec, asking if I would like them to put me forward.



I then received this email (I have removed some ID details):

This email relates to your recent discussions regarding the position of XXXX at the company of XXXX

XXXXAgency name are to provide you with contract recruitment services; that is to say we will act as an Employment Business as defined under The Employment Agencies Act 1973.

Please can you reply to all the addressed above, including this email, that your Limited Company are happy to Opt Out of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment (EAA) Business Regulations 2003.

Under Regulation 14 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003, agencies are required to obtain agreement of terms with work seekers before providing them with work finding services.

Passport and References

The Employment Agencies Act 1973 also require us to obtain proof that you are eligible to work in this country, and you are capable of providing the services to our clients, we therefore require names of two referees and a copy of your passport, or visa documents to support your application.

Check list

To clarify we need the following:

Passport for ID (as well as any supporting Visa information if required)
Contact details for two referees
Confirmation that you agree to be represented by XXXXAgency name

So - having read this thread there are certain aspects that sound alarm bells.

The opt in and out clause and their responsibility towards it seem to allude that they will not move me forward without my opting out - am I interpreting that correctly?
The wording around the clause of the 2003 act and terms agreed before they act as work finders seems willfully ambiguous - from what I can glean, I am allowed an option on those terms, either in or opt out - I am correct in this aren't I?
The referees contact details - both my referees have spam filters and a preferred suppliers list but are well versed in being hassled by agents, they are aware of this and are ok, so whilst I am not delighted to share them, I'll wait and see if I am told this is a blocker for interview and make a judgement then.


I'm grateful for people's views - I would like the role and would not like to loose the opportunity - but it's not life or death.

[cojak]

I've moved this from the 2 references thread as the OP is asking off-topic questions.

[kaiser78]

If you are that bothered, just say to the agent you would like to progress the role but are not willing to confirm the opt our or provide references at this moment.
Remember the agent has contacted you so could be willing to compromise, so if this doesn't progress no sleep lost for you.

[mudskipper]

I've moved this from the 2 references thread as the OP is asking off-topic questions.

<stern look>I hope you weren't responsible for the errant apostrophe in the title.</stern look>

[Bunk]

<stern look>I hope you weren't responsible for the errant apostrophe in the title.</stern look>

Apostrophe? What about the flipping question mark, or lack thereof?

[stek]

Apostrophe? What about the flipping question mark, or lack thereof?

And the now popular, 'So, .....' beginning....

[BlasterBates]

I would read up about it. They probably want you to opt out but you may be able to stay opted in.

Not opting out gives you protection on payment i.e. you get paid even if your timesheet isn't signed or the client goes bankrupt and mutuality of obligation. In effect you have the rights of a temporary employee.

The downside is that obviously you are going to be pushed towards being inside IR35 if you are borderline. This is not to say opting in puts you inside, it doesn't but it does push you towards being inside. This is particularly the case where the agency is taking care to satisfy the regulations, because they will need to set up the contract between themselves and the client accordingly.

If you are already in IR35 then obviously you don't want to opt out. If you are border line you may want to weigh up your options.

Some contractors are not facing the question at all i.e. the agency doesn't ask and the issue is more or less ignored. This gives you the best of both worlds as the contract will usually be outside IR35 but in a legal dispute you can bash the agency over the head with the regulation so that you get paid.

Have a read of this:

http://http://www.brookson.co.uk/knowledge-centre/limited-company/ir35-employment-status/conduct-of-employment/

In my view we're going to see more of this, the agencies are now under the microscope so they're making sure they satisfy all the regulations i.e. I think the ideal situation of the agency ignoring it will become scarcer.

[cojak]

<stern look>I hope you weren't responsible for the errant apostrophe in the title.</stern look>

I would have corrected it myself had I noticed. It would have ensured that pedants wouldn't jump on the OP, providing no helpful advice but lots of useless tutting...

[TheFaQQer]

The opt in and out clause and their responsibility towards it seem to allude that they will not move me forward without my opting out - am I interpreting that correctly?

Ask them what happens if you don't opt out.

The wording around the clause of the 2003 act and terms agreed before they act as work finders seems willfully ambiguous - from what I can glean, I am allowed an option on those terms, either in or opt out - I am correct in this aren't I?

Yes

[LaHombre]

I would read up about it. They probably want you to opt out but you may be able to stay opted in.

Not opting out gives you protection on payment i.e. you get paid even if your timesheet isn't signed or the client goes bankrupt and mutuality of obligation. In effect you have the rights of a temporary employee.

The downside is that obviously you are going to be pushed towards being inside IR35 if you are borderline. This is not to say opting in puts you inside, it doesn't but it does push you towards being inside. This is particularly the case where the agency is taking care to satisfy the regulations, because they will need to set up the contract between themselves and the client accordingly.

If you are already in IR35 then obviously you don't want to opt out. If you are border line you may want to weigh up your options.

Some contractors are not facing the question at all i.e. the agency doesn't ask and the issue is more or less ignored. This gives you the best of both worlds as the contract will usually be outside IR35 but in a legal dispute you can bash the agency over the head with the regulation so that you get paid.

Have a read of this:

http://http://www.brookson.co.uk/knowledge-centre/limited-company/ir35-employment-status/conduct-of-employment/

In my view we're going to see more of this, the agencies are now under the microscope so they're making sure they satisfy all the regulations i.e. I think the ideal situation of the agency ignoring it will become scarcer.

Thank you for that reply - so whilst it's not everyone's preference, it looks like the hard place in the rock and hard place equation more and more when looking for work.

I'll take the advice in the thread I had posted in in, and the additional advice here and wait out, see if the role progresses and where the agent want's to go. Having had a search the client company is looking for a permanent position with the same job spec, so I wonder if they have canned it, or are wanting and interim.