Agency Payment Terms

[TheFaQQer]

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.

They don't need to give an justification or explanation of how they run their business. In the same way that Tesco Booths get my money long before they have to pay their suppliers, and even further than when they pay the source of the product.

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.

This is the bit that I don't get - why get upset with something that you accepted? If you accepted it with no bother before, why are you stressing about it now?

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.

Unfortunately, there are precious few agencies working in this space that operate like that.

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?

It's not required, nor is it industry specific to IT. It is the way that the sector operates - either go direct or find an agency that will take you on PAYE (some might, you never know).

[WTFH]

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.

In your ideal world, what reason has the recruiter got for doing their job?
1. The agent/"recruiter" earns commission by placing you. The end client pays the agent. The agent takes their cut and passes the remainder on to "you"
2. To the agent, "you" are the accountant, the limited company, the umbrella company. It's the place the money goes so that taxes are paid before it goes into your bank account.


If you want to bypass the agent, then you go direct with clients. That cuts out one middleman.
If you want to bypass an umbrella company, then you set up your own Ltd.
If you want to bypass paying tax, then you need to be prepared for HMRC to knock on your door.


This is normal for any private sector business.


As for your partner, without knowing the details of their contract, it's difficult to comment. Perhaps she doesn't need liability insurance. Perhaps her "contract" is a "contract of employment" rather than a "contract for the supply of services". If you want a contract of employment direct with an end client then go for it. It's called a permanent job.

[seanraaron]

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.

I think you guys are making a bigger deal out of this than I am, honestly. It's annoying, but not so annoying I would quit contracting over it if every agency operated this way. And not so annoying I'm "stressing" over it. Maybe it's because I'm American - does annoying have a stronger connotation over here? I've been living in Scotland for over fourteen years and haven't gotten that impression.

If I had to choose between two agencies repping for the same gig and the only difference was the amount of time they paid in arrears then absolutely this would be a deciding factor for me. It's only my first contract so I have no clue what things will be like when I'm next on the market, but I'm hoping I can get with someone who doesn't arbitrarily withhold my pay.

[MrMarkyMark]

It's not required, nor is it industry specific to IT. It is the way that the sector operates - either go direct or find an agency that will take you on PAYE (some might, you never know).

His partner may also be on a fixed term contract, with the council, so, could be comparing apples and oranges, really.

[TheFaQQer]

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.

Did the client as the agent for CVs? Did the agent have a legal authority to represent the candidate?

If the answer to either one of those is no, then it goes nowhere.

[seanraaron]

His partner may also be on a fixed term contract, with the council, so, could be comparing apples and oranges, really.

She is, but it's been renewed. I've not seen any indication anyone who works with IT in the private sector works on that basis. They seem to want to avoid processing NI and PAYE when they engage contractors, just like agencies.

@TheFaQQer: that's reassuring, but I can't see an easy way to tell beyond sticking with big-name agencies I've heard of before.

[northernladuk]

I think you guys are making a bigger deal out of this than I am, honestly.

I am absolutely certain we are not.

[MrMarkyMark]

She is, but it's been renewed. I've not seen any indication anyone who works with IT in the private sector works on that basis. They seem to want to avoid processing NI and PAYE when they engage contractors, just like agencies.

FTC are a totally different kettles of fish.

They do exist in the Private sector, I can assure you.

[WTFH]

She is, but it's been renewed. I've not seen any indication anyone who works with IT in the private sector works on that basis. They seem to want to avoid processing NI and PAYE when they engage contractors, just like agencies.

OK, so she is on a Fixed Term EMPLOYMENT Contract. That is completely different to a contract to supply services.


Read about it here:
https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contra...dterm-contract

Employers must also ensure that fixed-term employees get:

• the same pay and conditions as permanent staff
• the same or equivalent benefits package
• information about permanent vacancies in the organisation
• protection against redundancy or dismissal

You don't get any of those as a contractor in IT or any other sector where you do not have a fixed term employment contract.

[seanraaron]

OK, so she is on a Fixed Term EMPLOYMENT Contract. That is completely different to a contract to supply services.


Read about it here:
https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contra...dterm-contract


You don't get any of those as a contractor in IT or any other sector where you do not have a fixed term employment contract.

Yeah, I do wish that was easier to come by. Paid holiday and sick leave is nice, but I rather doubt I'd get the same rate that comes with that.

@northernladuk: that's a shame, I thought there was more effort involved in a lot of these replies.

I do still honestly want to know if anyone has any top tips for recognising dodgy agents, but I suspect that's another ongoing thread...