Possibly going direct

[Shanshan]

Hi all,

I'm looking for some helpful advice regarding the above.

I will be looking for a new contract shortly. I have read a few threads on the above, but would really like further info.

I am an accounting contractor working through a limited company. I am currently working directly with the end client, no agency. This contract is due to end shortly.

If possible, I would like to avoid the agencies as I think, from my experience, they are not liked by end clients. So if it is possible to avoid them, I would like to look in to it.

I would intend to approach medium to large work places via the HR or Finance section.

Is the above frowned upon by most medium to large work places? I understand the above may also be time consuming, does anyone have any advice on this issue?

Thanks

[BolshieBastard]

Of course its frowned on by most HR Depts, whether small, medium or large sized organisations.

If it wasnt frowned on, why do you think there are so many agencies involved?

The simple fact is most HR Depts dont want the hassle of sifting through hundreds of applications from contractors when they can get the agents to do it and send them 3 or 4 each (even IF the contractors submitted by the agents arent the best, most suitable contractors).

HR Depts dont want to fanny around drawing up different contracts for each individual contractor again, when they can draw one up with the agents.

In 10 years of contracting, I've worked with only one company that allowed some contractors to go direct but made the majority of its contractors go through agencies.

So good luck!

[Another Dodgy Agent]

The main problem with a "direct contract" is your Ltd company exposure, typically read the liability clause that will be in place between your end client and your Ltd Co, sleepless nights will result unless you have mega PI cover.

Hence the recruitment agency, which sits in between your Ltd Co and the end client, has mega PI (I believe ours is currently in excess of 10M), coupled with the fact that you get paid a whole lot quicker. The majority of our clients have an excess of 90 days turnaround (we employ someone whose whole duty is credit control), whereas a reasonable agent should provide a seven day turnaround on receipt of invoice.

See we're not just an ugly face! :-)

[VectraMan]

I think you'll find most direct contracts come via contacts rather than approaches. I secured a direct contract like this a few months back, but I've ended up being burned by a client that can't/won't pay. With hindsight I wish I'd had an agent. I'd have had the money, and it would now be the agent's problem to recover the debt.

Though from the stories on here it does seem there are some dodgy agents that try not to pay you until they've been paid.

[expat]

The main problem with a "direct contract" is your Ltd company exposure, typically read the liability clause that will be in place between your end client and your Ltd Co, sleepless nights will result unless you have mega PI cover.

Hence the recruitment agency, which sits in between your Ltd Co and the end client, has mega PI (I believe ours is currently in excess of 10M), coupled with the fact that you get paid a whole lot quicker. The majority of our clients have an excess of 90 days turnaround (we employ someone whose whole duty is credit control), whereas a reasonable agent should provide a seven day turnaround on receipt of invoice.

See we're not just an ugly face! :-)

With respect, bollocks.

I have 10M PI and it doesn't cost much, as it shouldn't because the chance of it's being needed is minuscule.

In my current direct contract I get paid 30d on monthly invoice, this is normal business practice though of course if the choice were between 90d or 15% to a parasite, it wouldn't take me long to decide. I even once got a contract direct and then was forced by the client's HR to go through an agency; the agency told me at least I was gaining by being paid 45d, when they were paid 90d: I checked and they were lying, the client paid 30d and the agent held on to it for 15d!

Agents have one big thing in their favour, they have contracts. That's because that is where HR place them, and I am surprised that nobody has mentioned motives more sinister than convenience for that.

Agencies don't do serious contractors or clients any good.

[Cyberman]

With respect, bollocks.

I have 10M PI and it doesn't cost much, as it shouldn't because the chance of it's being needed is minuscule.

In my current direct contract I get paid 30d on monthly invoice, this is normal business practice though of course if the choice were between 90d or 15% to a parasite, it wouldn't take me long to decide. I even once got a contract direct and then was forced by the client's HR to go through an agency; the agency told me at least I was gaining by being paid 45d, when they were paid 90d: I checked and they were lying, the client paid 30d and the agent held on to it for 15d!

Agents have one big thing in their favour, they have contracts. That's because that is where HR place them, and I am surprised that nobody has mentioned motives more sinister than convenience for that.

Agencies don't do serious contractors or clients any good.

I think you're being slightly naive here. We are probably heading for a major recession, even a depression if interest rates are not cut dramatically. Cash flow problems will arise and companies will withhold payment regardless of payment terms, maybe for months. You may even be in a situation where the client goes bust and you could lose months of money.
It's far better to go through an agency that pays within two weeks. At least the most you will lose will only be a couple of weeks pay. With the agent you will know whether they are having problems almost immediately, but with a client, by the time they have run out of excuses you could be owed 2-3 months money.

[XLMonkey]

Done both options, pros and cons are largely as described above. However, I wouldn't want to build a business solely on selling myself directly to firms. The majority have preferred supplier arrangements (usually called PSL's) with a small number of agencies, and will not trade with you directly. Whether you believe in the merits of PSL's or not, the reality is that they are common practice.

You have a reasonable prospect of drumming up business with old contacts, and that's probably your best bet (provided you are any good, of course :-). However, even then you may need to contract through an agency in order to get through HR/Purchasing department approvals.

Good luck.

[TykeMerc]

I can only think of one of my past clients that doesn't insist on an agency being involved when they hire contract staff and that's a tin pot outfit to be honest.

I've obtained several corporate client contracts in the past due to contacts, but their HR and Accounts Payable teams have always inserted an agency due to their payment policies and insurance requirements.

I've never had to chase payments or cold call potential clients, while I would prefer not to lose a cut of the rate to an agent they do add value to certain parts of the process at least to me.

[DodgyAgent]

Agencies don't do serious contractors or clients any good.

What on earth does that mean?
what do you mean by "serious contractors"?

What is the difference between a serious contractor/client and a non serious one?

What I think you are really saying is that you think that you are so important (or is that full of your own self importance) that you shouldnt have to deal with anyone other than the IT director.. he/she employs HR and agents so he/she doesnt have to communicate with knobs like you.

The other question that I want to ask is.. who are you to judge whether or not companies who decide to delegate communicating with knobs like you to "minions" are making sensible business decisions or not. The arrogance of the drivel that you spout expat is at times mind boggling.

[DodgyAgent]

With respect, bollocks.

I have 10M PI and it doesn't cost much, as it shouldn't because the chance of it's being needed is minuscule.

In my current direct contract I get paid 30d on monthly invoice, this is normal business practice though of course if the choice were between 90d or 15% to a parasite, it wouldn't take me long to decide. I even once got a contract direct and then was forced by the client's HR to go through an agency; the agency told me at least I was gaining by being paid 45d, when they were paid 90d: I checked and they were lying, the client paid 30d and the agent held on to it for 15d!

Agents have one big thing in their favour, they have contracts. That's because that is where HR place them, and I am surprised that nobody has mentioned motives more sinister than convenience for that.

.

I will however agree with the rest of your reply to what "another dodgy agent"
has to say. I will add that so often when one of my fellow agents comes on here, they nearly always trot out the same bits of brainwashing, that quite clearly some boss has in turn trotted out in his "monthly motivation for the spivs speech".