Contract Restrictions - Agency saying i cant work for customer

[theway]

Hi - my current contract is ending as the agency i go through is no longer being used by the customer due to some policy changes at the customer. The customer still willing to offer me work just we cannot use my current agency. Yet agency is saying i cant due to restrictions in my contract with them. Yet they cannot offer me any alternatives.
Can they do this? As it seems a bit unfair they are denying me work on the basis they cannot engage with customer anymore

[northernladuk]

It is unfair and they cannot hold you to the restriction. The idea of the handcuff is to protect their revenue stream. If you were with the agency and then went direct with the client after the first contract then the agency would lose out the money they would expect if you continued through them so a clear case where the handcuff would stand.
In your case the client will no longer deal with the agency so the agency won't get another penny from you going back to the client so totally unfair and a restriction of trade for absolutely no reason.

It's outrageous that agents do this. There is absolutely nothing the agent can gain from pulling this handcuff on you so why on earth do they do it.

Point out the fact that the client cannot work with the agency anymore therefore they are no longer a customer so the clause is invaild and then ignore them. They'll cause a bit of a fuss because they are arseholes and hopefully they'll backoff. In the worst case they'll threaten to sue you but just ignore them. They cannot prove any loss from you going back so won't stand up in court.

[biergarten]

i can see a bit of "unfairness" from the end client to the agency, a way of saving the agency's cut

[cojak]

i can see a bit of "unfairness" from the end client to the agency, a way of saving the agency's cut

But we only care about contractors - clients and agents can squabble amongst themselves.

[northernladuk]

i can see a bit of "unfairness" from the end client to the agency, a way of saving the agency's cut

But that's not the case. The OP clearly states 'i go through is no longer being used by the customer due to some policy changes at the customer'
Agency agreements come and go, that's life. We don't know what the policy change is but that's business.

The OP hasn't said what the new process is. I would assume it's a different agency rather than going direct so might be interesting to here what the future engagement process is. If it's another agent it's no wonder the old one is getting uppety. If it's client direct then the agency doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Snooky]

i can see a bit of "unfairness" from the end client to the agency, a way of saving the agency's cut

Not the contractor's problem. If the agency thinks the client has breached their contract with them, that's where they should be looking for compensation.

As NLUK says, the contractor is not bound by the handcuff - or rather, the agency would fail if they tried to claim damages - because they're not causing any loss to the agency.

[biergarten]

yeap. i agree with all of you, it is not an issue in the contractor-recruiter link, no handcuff. but in the whole scenario it seems like somebody is breaking something. and i bet "agency is saying i cant due to restrictions in my contract with them" is part of their strategy in the fight with the end client, just to scare the OP and see if just walks away

[Lance]

I did this with one client. But the client dealt with both agencies and made it happen.

[CoolCat]

only time this has been tried on me the restrictions were on the limited company, not the individual. so the individual contractors simply setup new limited companies, or shifted to different umbrella companies, and went back to the end client, and there was nothing that could be done about it.

[northernladuk]

only time this has been tried on me the restrictions were on the limited company, not the individual. so the individual contractors simply setup new limited companies, or shifted to different umbrella companies, and went back to the end client, and there was nothing that could be done about it.

Only because it's too complicated to do. You can 'pierce the corporate veil' to focus on the individual if the change in company is just a thinly veiled attempt to avoid contractual responsibilities such as this.
They can also kick up a massive stink and start throwing this threat and generally making everyone's life a misery to the point someone caves as well. Clients don't want this hassle so if the agency is willing to push it they can get the client to wash their hands of the whole sorry state.

So in theory maybe but in practice there are things they can do to ruin the whole arrangement if they want to be vindictive.