Work directly or through an agency?

[twickenkam]

Hi all,

If you had choice to work directly with a customer or via an agency, which option would you go for? Assume the rate is the same. I feel working directly makes communication easier as there are fewer parties involved. But then I was thinking whether involvement of the agency somehow helps with IR35, like adding extra layer assuring no mutuality of obligations ?

Regards

[Pat Phelan]

Which rate is the same?
The rate the client is paying or the rate you are receiving?
Also, did the agency find you the job or did you find the client directly?

[northernladuk]

There could be up to 90 days payment terms direct. Agents do a decent job of factoring which many people don't realise.

Are you asking because you are in that situation? It's very uncommon to have to make this decision so I don't really know as its unlikely to happen TBH.

P. S. Read up on MoO....

[twickenkam]

Which rate is the same?
The rate the client is paying or the rate you are receiving?
Also, did the agency find you the job or did you find the client directly?

My rate would be the same. What would be the deal between agent and the company I do not know. I was approached by an agent and I from there on they got me the match. What is discussed though is which way is better and for who. To me the money would be the same in both scenarios.

[Pat Phelan]

Stick with the agency then. They will most likely pay you quicker and you and the client will avoid any repercussions around bypassing the introducer for the role.

[oliverson]

Hi all,

If you had choice to work directly with a customer or via an agency, which option would you go for? Assume the rate is the same. I feel working directly makes communication easier as there are fewer parties involved. But then I was thinking whether involvement of the agency somehow helps with IR35, like adding extra layer assuring no mutuality of obligations ?

Regards

I've done both and for the same client, first time through agency and second time direct, after client bunged agent a few quid to 'go away'. The issue I had was that payment dates were known when through the agency but going direct I was constantly having to chase them up for payment. But if you have no choice, like I did, you have no choice and just have to live with it. Can't recall whether the rate was any different, which probably means it wasn't. Saving for the client then.

[DeludedKitten]

Direct with the client.

Even if there are worse payment terms, there's one less person to disappear with the money, and one less contract that you'll never have sight of. Plus you get the chance to explain clearer your right of substitution and other contractual clauses.

It's a no brainer IMHO only.

[Whorty]

done both and given the chance I'd go direct. Never had problems with not being paid - all clients have always paid to the terms of the contract. Last client I was direct with had vendor payment standard terms of 90 days, but for contractors they always changed this to 15 days (timesheets and invoice had to be in by end of month to meet the pay run mid following month).

[SueEllen]

I've done both. I have had to chase both direct clients and agencies for payment. Personally if I had the choice I would go with the party who pays the quickest.

[MrLoveBucket]

I did 9 months with my current client through an agency, then the project finished and I was contracted elsewhere for 6 months.
I kept in touch with my contact at the client and was asked back for another project. By this time the handcuff with the agency had expired so I am now direct and was able to negotiate my rate up, partially because of the absence of the agency markup.
Client is a reasonably large FS provider, haven't had any problem with 30 days payment terms so far (15 months in).