Supervision, Direction, and Control

[pscx]

Cheers guys. I assumed as much. I can't post the "agreement" contract here as I don't want to be naming and shaming anyone. But I guess if you are asked to sign something like this you'd know exactly which agency I'm talking about.

There were other things in the "agreement" which I found somewhat distasteful like lock-in clauses, i.e. Once I get a contract via them and that contract is finished, I can't get a new contract with that client via any other agency for a period of up to 12 months. I'd have to go back to this agency. May be if I stretch the definition of the word "reasonable", I could say it is reasonable to ask for something like this for a contract with a very small company that doesn't really hire more that one or two people a year. But this agency works (or claims to) with investment banks!

I guess I'll leave things there then.

[LondonManc]

Cheers guys. I assumed as much. I can't post the "agreement" contract here as I don't want to be naming and shaming anyone. But I guess if you are asked to sign something like this you'd know exactly which agency I'm talking about.

There were other things in the "agreement" which I found somewhat distasteful like lock-in clauses, i.e. Once I get a contract via them and that contract is finished, I can't get a new contract with that client via any other agency for a period of up to 12 months. I'd have to go back to this agency. May be if I stretch the definition of the word "reasonable", I could say it is reasonable to ask for something like this for a contract with a very small company that doesn't really hire more that one or two people a year. But this agency works (or claims to) with investment banks!

I guess I'll leave things there then.

Six months in normal and has been enforced in the past. Unless the client wholly dismisses the agency and does not deal with them, which means that the agency is no longer able to provide you with an interface to the client; as such, you are not denying the agency money.

[northernladuk]

That handcuff is unfair and unreasonable so isn't worth the paper it's written on. I'd take no notice of that.

[SlipTheJab]

That handcuff is unfair and unreasonable so isn't worth the paper it's written on. I'd take no notice of that.

Regarding this clause I always wonder what crystal ball the agency are using to realise that 6 or 9 months after you finished with them you are back at the same client and they want you to pony up some £££ as compo, they would have to be stalking you, in my experience once you've finished a contract it's sayonara and onto the next.

[BlasterBates]

The handcuff clause is almost certainly not enforceable.

Generally handcuff clauses are a deterrent, and as long as you don't actually switch agencies mid-contract or perhaps at renewal with a fair offer, then really nothing to worry about.

They won't prevent you coming back a few weeks after your contract has expired on different project.

[jmo21]

Regarding this clause I always wonder what crystal ball the agency are using to realise that 6 or 9 months after you finished with them you are back at the same client and they want you to pony up some £££ as compo, they would have to be stalking you, in my experience once you've finished a contract it's sayonara and onto the next.

It's mostly used as a way of keeping them involved when extensions happen.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm way off, but I reckon most agents are busy enough without doing random "year later" spot checks on contractors.

[LondonManc]

It's mostly used as a way of keeping them involved when extensions happen.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm way off, but I reckon most agents are busy enough without doing random "year later" spot checks on contractors.

Correct on the first point.

Six months has proved to be what's generally enforceable and imo is reasonable. Each contract's a negotiation; they'd rather drop 12 months to 6 than lose the gig.

[Yonmons]

It may also have been included so that there can be no possibility of debt transfer under the new legislation on tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses

I think you mate have hit the nail on the head with that, my thoughts exactly.