Same client new agency

[northernladuk]

If you 'opt out' that's exactly what they will do (it's one of the reasons the legislation was drafted in the first place), it would probably fail the 'reasonable clause' test in court, but as stated I don't know of anyone that's had it go that far (in 30 years of contracting). In practice you would get the left hook of the Agency 'legal dept' ringing you and giving you 'both barrels'. The 'legal dept' would also ring the client with the subtle right hook of 'we'll drag you through the courts' if you do this. (p.s. this is from experience, and there are ways around it if needs be and depending on the client).

Why do you want to go back through another agency, surely you'd be better off direct?

He didn't want to. The agent approached him so the agent will have dibs on the gig now. It's highly likely with at least two agents in site going direct won't be an option either.

[LondonManc]

He didn't want to. The agent approached him so the agent will have dibs on the gig now. It's highly likely with at least two agents in site going direct won't be an option either.

I also consider debt/payment terms; if an agent is offering weekly pay versus a client taking over a month and sometimes longer (work from January getting paid in March not being uncommon when direct) then it takes a lot of risk out of the process.

[SueEllen]

Hi SE,

Not contradicting you but can you (or anyone) provide an authoratitive link sunstantiating that statement ?

Thanks,

Boo

Look it up yourself on Google another poster managed to. I think he looked under "blue pencil test" or "blue pen test".

[SueEllen]

If you 'opt out' that's exactly what they will do (it's one of the reasons the legislation was drafted in the first place), it would probably fail the 'reasonable clause' test in court, but as stated I don't know of anyone that's had it go that far (in 30 years of contracting). In practice you would get the left hook of the Agency 'legal dept' ringing you and giving you 'both barrels'. The 'legal dept' would also ring the client with the subtle right hook of 'we'll drag you through the courts' if you do this. (p.s. this is from experience, and there are ways around it if needs be and depending on the client).

I've been with other contractors who found themselves in a similar situation. In their cases it was the clients who set the agency straight. Only one of the contractors knew the agency had no legs to stand on before the client got involved because he had sought legal advice.

[NigelJK]

Unhappily when it happened to me it was a US based outfit and they reacted as only the yanks can.

[LondonManc]

Unhappily when it happened to me it was a US based outfit and they reacted as only the yanks can.

Started a war?

[NigelJK]

No they did the French/Italian thing.

Should have added 'when faced with a litigant'.

[LondonManc]

No they did the French/Italian thing.

Should have added 'when faced with a litigant'.

Surrendered? Changed sides?

[NigelJK]

White flag, agency database more important (according to the Agency 'legal dept') to the client. I pointed out that my CV was on all of the S3 agency databases and every other agency that had ever put my CV forward. Still you can't win 'em all.