Agency Payment Terms

[northernladuk]

You are in a B2B contract now. The payment terms could be 90 days and beyond if you went direct. The agent is doing you a favour factoring the money (well he isn't, he's being paid for it but you get my meaning). Different agents will mitigate there risk to different levels. If you don't like the payment terms you end the gig I am afraid. In a few cases the agents will bend but I wouldn't take that as a given.

I'd be a bit worried about managing weekly budgets on a weekly basis is hard though. Maybe if you can change that so you can manage your budgets a bit easier the length of payment terms will cease to be a problem and just become more of an annoyance? Does your accountant run an online portal? Maybe a spreadsheet system? Could be worth speaking to them to see if they can help with whatever is making it hard. SJD have a spreadsheet you can download for free or you could try a free trial of Freeagent? Running your company finance is a big part of contracting so if you can get on top of that it should be a weight off your mind.

Ugh... You are umbrella. Forget most of that.....

[TheFaQQer]

Ugh... You are umbrella. Forget most of that.....

I'm sure that most umbrellas would co-operate if you asked them to keep your money in their bank account earning interest and then pay monthly rather than paying weekly.

[seanraaron]

I'm sure that most umbrellas would co-operate if you asked them to keep your money in their bank account earning interest and then pay monthly rather than paying weekly.

I actually think that's an option and assuming they've not screwed me over tax-wise I might ask them about that.

To be clear it isn't an "I need money to live" issue: I've got a nice cushion from my redundancy to draw on - it's the principle of the thing. These jokers are sitting on my cash earning interest or whatever and there's no real justification for it beyond "that's just how we do things." It is an annoyance more than anything else, but if I can possibly avoid it in the future, then shouldn't I? Isn't less annoyance better for long-term wellbeing?

Timing negotiations is something that would be useful to know more about. I was under the impression that if I go for a job with Agency A then they have some kind of referral claim, so if I decide not to accept their terms doesn't that mean I can't go with another agency without them or the client risking reprisal action from Agency A?

I'm asking because I had a gig fall through after it was internally filled. The client I interviewed with said he had a lot of grief from dodgy agency people spamming him with unsolicited CVs and he needed to be sure not to read them or he risked getting hit with legal claims if he hired someone whose CV had been submitted like this. I don't know if that's real or what!

[pr1]

These jokers are sitting on my cash earning interest or whatever and there's no real justification for it beyond "that's just how we do things." It is an annoyance more than anything else, but if I can possibly avoid it in the future, then shouldn't I? Isn't less annoyance better for long-term wellbeing?

They're actually probably not "sitting on your cash" - they're probably getting paid 60 or 90 (maybe more) days after they submit their invoices to your end client. You accepted the terms.

This is contracting, if you're not happy with something you either negotiate or decline - no one is forcing you to accept anything

[TheFaQQer]

Timing negotiations is something that would be useful to know more about. I was under the impression that if I go for a job with Agency A then they have some kind of referral claim, so if I decide not to accept their terms doesn't that mean I can't go with another agency without them or the client risking reprisal action from Agency A?

I'm asking because I had a gig fall through after it was internally filled. The client I interviewed with said he had a lot of grief from dodgy agency people spamming him with unsolicited CVs and he needed to be sure not to read them or he risked getting hit with legal claims if he hired someone whose CV had been submitted like this. I don't know if that's real or what!

If the client has an agreement with the agency to supply them with CVs, then the CV isn't unsolicited - and if they then approached the candidate directly or via another agency then I would expect the agency to have a claim against the client.

If you agree that the agency will represent you to the client, and then breach that agreement, then I would expect the agency to have a claim against you.

When I was permie we had an agency send in unsolicited CVs. At the same time, another agency sent in a CV for a candidate, who we hired. The first agency tried to claim that they should get the commission because they got in first - but the fact that they spammed unsolicited CVs meant that we just told them to go away. That's also one reason why I won't deal with that person, whichever agency he works for these days.

[seanraaron]

They're actually probably not "sitting on your cash" - they're probably getting paid 60 or 90 (maybe more) days after they submit their invoices to your end client. You accepted the terms.

This is contracting, if you're not happy with something you either negotiate or decline - no one is forcing you to accept anything

When they get paid is nothing to do with me, but if they gave that as the justification for 28 days rather than seven days in arrears (or none), I'd accept it.

I know that I should have negotiated up front - never disagreed with that notion. I was told about the 28 days in advance and accepted it, thinking it was about them getting paid by their client first. It's only after I was told my arrears had nothing to do with them getting paid that I got annoyed.

In my ideal world the recruiter would just get me a gig with an end client and the end client would just pay me direct and not an umbrella company or my accountant or whatever. I'm not trying to run a business here, I'm just wanting to work short-medium term contracts and get paid and pay the same taxes I've always paid, not play games with HMRC.

I don't understand why this is so difficult - my partner is a social worker on a contract basis and she doesn't have to use an agency, she just works on a rolling contract with a council. What the hell is so special about IT that all this extra nonsense is required?

[MrMarkyMark]

When they get paid is nothing to do with me, but if they gave that as the justification for 28 days rather than seven days in arrears (or none), I'd accept it.

I know that I should have negotiated up front - never disagreed with that notion. I was told about the 28 days in advance and accepted it, thinking it was about them getting paid by their client first. It's only after I was told my arrears had nothing to do with them getting paid that I got annoyed.

Why would you accept it? When they get paid is none of your concern.
My agency pay me 3 days after invoicing, my agency gets paid 3 months after invoicing.

Do I care? No.

As I said, you should have negotiated at the outset, you have no grounds to be moaning now, whatever you "thought" before.

[psychocandy]

No, not all, I'm actually doing something very right.

When you are running a company, you should enter into as little risk as possible.
In this instance that means getting my invoices (debtors) to pay up ASAP.

Of course. Im not saying that. If its a small agency/client then its a risk you have to weigh up. But if its one of the big ones you're probably ok.

Thing is some of the big ones do it on these terms. You can try to get them to change but good luck with that one.

My point is crying saying "I want my money after a week because I need it to spend now" is a little shortsighted.

[seanraaron]

we had an agency send in unsolicited CVs. At the same time, another agency sent in a CV for a candidate, who we hired. The first agency tried to claim that they should get the commission because they got in first - but the fact that they spammed unsolicited CVs meant that we just told them to go away. That's also one reason why I won't deal with that person, whichever agency he works for these days.

I can see what you're saying there, but what if the "unsolicited CV" was submitted because the agency lied to the contractor about being the supplier to the client? Thats not really the applicant's fault, is it? That's my other concern: having someone who isn't on the level tell me about a job with a client they have no relationship with and then effectively ruin my chances of talking to the actual supplier.

If you can clarify the point about the claim, please. Are you saying if I don't agree to an agency's terms on a gig, then I should just walk away from that entire job because no one else can submit me for it? Effectively that's why I agreed to terms in this case: I needed to get my foot in the door rather than eat my redundancy money waiting for a contract I liked.

It seems therefore like having someone represent me BEFORE I know their contract terms isn't a good idea as it would mean I'm missing out on that opportunity completely in the event they're not agreeable as they'd then have a claim to represent me. But given I have no contract with them I don't see how that makes sense. The more I ask questions the less clear this stuff appears to be...

[MrMarkyMark]

Of course. Im not saying that. If its a small agency/client then its a risk you have to weigh up. But if its one of the big ones you're probably ok.

Thing is some of the big ones do it on these terms. You can try to get them to change but good luck with that one.

My point is crying saying "I want my money after a week because I need it to spend now" is a little shortsighted.

Being probably OK is not something I entertain. Remember Enron?

Completely untrue, most will change payment terms, if you approach it right.
One agency here, I know of, very big, contractors on all sorts of payment terms, so........

Very true, hence why the OP should have got this sorted out, at the outset.