• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Client will ditch the agency but want to keep me - handcuff clause

Collapse
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Client will ditch the agency but want to keep me - handcuff clause

    My client said they will stop working with my agency from April, but want to continue to use my services (direct).
    I have a handcuff clause that says I need to pay the agency x% + VAT of all money invoiced for the duration of any direct work with the client (a max limit of 12 months applies).

    Has anybody been in this situation? How did you tackle it? Is it even enforceable if the agency won't get any more work from the client anyway?

    #2
    Originally posted by zonkkk View Post
    My client said they will stop working with my agency from April, but want to continue to use my services (direct).
    I have a handcuff clause that says I need to pay the agency x% + VAT of all money invoiced for the duration of any direct work with the client (a max limit of 12 months applies).

    Has anybody been in this situation? How did you tackle it? Is it even enforceable if the agency won't get any more work from the client anyway?
    normally the clauses just says you can't.
    This is interesting as they may actually be able to force you to pay IF THEY FIND OUT

    Could they find out? Do they have anyone else on site?
    Nothing is enforceable without evidence.
    You could startup another LTD as well. The old LTD has the clause (I assume that you signed as c director of the company and not as a person)
    See You Next Tuesday

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by zonkkk View Post
      My client said they will stop working with my agency from April, but want to continue to use my services (direct).
      I have a handcuff clause that says I need to pay the agency x% + VAT of all money invoiced for the duration of any direct work with the client (a max limit of 12 months applies).

      Has anybody been in this situation? How did you tackle it? Is it even enforceable if the agency won't get any more work from the client anyway?
      I once worked for a client who paid an agent off to allow a contractor to go direct.
      The contractor quit around 12 months after, so i doubt the client saved much.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Lance View Post
        normally the clauses just says you can't.
        This is interesting as they may actually be able to force you to pay IF THEY FIND OUT

        Could they find out? Do they have anyone else on site?
        Nothing is enforceable without evidence.
        You could startup another LTD as well. The old LTD has the clause (I assume that you signed as c director of the company and not as a person)
        Contract says: "the Company and separately the Representative"... Client will just stop working with them, nobody else on site.
        I don't want expose myself to the risk of 'BEING FOUND OUT'!

        It's a good agency to be honest (they are on fixed commission, and were transparent about it, weekly 7 days payment terms, etc.), and it's a shame, but it is what it is...

        So trying to see if anybody else has been in this situation and what did they do.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by zonkkk View Post
          Contract says: "the Company and separately the Representative"... Client will just stop working with them, nobody else on site.
          I don't want expose myself to the risk of 'BEING FOUND OUT'!

          It's a good agency to be honest (they are on fixed commission, and were transparent about it, weekly 7 days payment terms, etc.), and it's a shame, but it is what it is...

          So trying to see if anybody else has been in this situation and what did they do.
          if it was me, I'd just do it.
          Not put anything on LinkedIn, and even potentially ask the client to change my email address if I was using their system.

          If they contact you deny it all.
          If they send you a letter, reply saying they should provide evidence.
          See You Next Tuesday

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Fraidycat View Post
            I once worked for a client who paid an agent off to allow a contractor to go direct.
            The contractor quit around 12 months after, so i doubt the client saved much.
            Any chance you could actually post some advice rather than it always being some made up anecdote about you?
            'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
              Any chance you could actually post some advice rather than it always being some made up anecdote about you?
              The advice was as mentioned in my post. The client should be the one paying the agent if they are the one trying to save money.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Lance View Post
                You could startup another LTD as well. The old LTD has the clause (I assume that you signed as c director of the company and not as a person)
                This is a very interesting approach. I like it. Only problem is some times they would include the consultants name in addition to LTD.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by BigDataPro View Post
                  This is a very interesting approach. I like it. Only problem is some times they would include the consultants name in addition to LTD.
                  So what?

                  The clause with the payment is between two legal entities, one of which won’t exist. Therefore it’s unenforceable.
                  See You Next Tuesday

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by BigDataPro View Post
                    This is a very interesting approach. I like it. Only problem is some times they would include the consultants name in addition to LTD.
                    So then you're effectively a disguised employee, or at least that's a huge pointer to being inside IR35 as, for one thing, there'd be no RoS with that.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X