Client wants me to go direct

[The Agents View]

Likely outcome:

Agency finds out about direct contract.

Agency invoices client for weekly rate X 12.

Client is locked down because they have inferred agreement to TOB by interviewing you.

Client has to pay up.

Client budget gets used on paying agency.

You get nothing.

Speak to the agent, tell them that they've tried to backdoor, and let him sort it out.

Either way - I would suspect you're unlikely to come up smelling of roses out of this I'm afraid.

[Boo]

I went for an interview via an agency. However the client asked if I could go direct with them, cause they prefer to go direct rather than via an agency. So if they offer me the role, how do I go about this, considering that the agency got me in touch with the client (any legal implications?)
Thank you.

You say "Yes, please..." to the client, "...but would you kindly tell the agency that you are going with someone else for me". If the agent calls about the job you were turned down for (about a 1:100 chance) just say "Please keep me in mind for anything else which turns up".

You will need to ensure that the client co. does not appear on your CV though for ever after - just say the contract had a non-disclosure clause if anyone asks.

In short : go for it, you have no contract with the agency at this stage anyway so meh.

Boo

[Boo]

Hmm.. it's a small company... I am concerned cause this will upset the agent..

1. Faq the agent.
2. They won't find out unless you tell them.
3. You are too soft hearted to be in business - go permie !

Boo

[Boo]

Likely outcome:

Agency finds out about direct contract.

Hahahaha. How, exactly ?

Agency invoices client for weekly rate X 12.

And of course they can do this because

1. A court will accept that their loss was the entire contract value, neglecting what they would have had to pay the contractor. Not.
And
2. They really do have a contract with the client. Honest. Hahahahaha.

Client is locked down because they have inferred agreement to TOB by interviewing you.

More male hen from an agent: there is nothing in any inferred agreement which would mean the client would have to pay the agent more than the margin they are seeking to avoid, and a court would undoubtedly say that the agencies' costs should be deducted from that even in the outstandingly remote chance that the court did fiond there was a contract in the first place.

Client has to pay up.

Client budget gets used on paying agency.

As stated the max the client would have to pay would be the agency margin minus the agency costs of fulfilling the contract.

You get nothing.

Speak to the agent, tell them that they've tried to backdoor, and let him sort it out.

Either way - I would suspect you're unlikely to come up smelling of roses out of this I'm afraid.

Self-serving Tulipe from the resident leech. Why don't you get a proper job ?

Boo

[perplexed]

I tend to go the ethical route - sure, I'd get criticism here for it, but I've no moral ground to complain about others shady acts if I'm borderline doing the same.

Agency had the job spec from client, advertised role on behalf of client. Your Cv and their actions got you an interview, which you clearly did well at.

End client now, for whatever reason, now want to subvert all of that, causing you potential hassle - why? Did client always intend contract to be a direct one, wanted to use the agency? Did client suddenly figure out by gonig direct, paying you a bit more, overall they'd pay less in total? Moreso, if the end client wanted to act like that, then what else could they be prepared to do when you're on site?

My approach would be as others have said - I'd inform the agency. If they've been straight with me, I'll always be straight back with them. There are some, (unfortunately a small number, but still...) good agents/agencies out there.

So basically, you could make a bit more cash going direct. That could cost you long term if you've a good relationship with the agency - would they ever consider you again? What are the motivations of the end client in this - dare you risk them shafting you the way they've used the agency?

[NotAllThere]

If the client are happy to shaft the agency, then they're even happier to shaft you.

[Wanderer]

Likely outcome:
Agency finds out about direct contract.
Agency invoices client for weekly rate X 12.
Client is locked down because they have inferred agreement to TOB by interviewing you.
Client has to pay up.
Client budget gets used on paying agency.
You get nothing.

You missed a step: Agent wakes up and realises it was all a wet dream.

Since the worker is not privy to the client's contractual relationship with the agency it is quite feasible that they would simply presume in good faith that the client had come to some arrangement to pay the agency a one off "finders fee" and engage with them direct rather than through the agency.

Agency invoices client for weekly rate X 12.

Yeah, that's the wet dream part. As Boo rightly points out, for breach of contract, the maximum the agency can claim would be the actual losses suffered which is the margin - the operating costs. And that's worst case scenario, presuming they ever find out....

[The Agents View]

Hahahaha. How, exactly ?

The walls have ears, the industry has ears - the SLIGHTEST slip up, and the agent will be on to it. We have a MILLION tricks to find out where you're working.

And of course they can do this because

1. A court will accept that their loss was the entire contract value, neglecting what they would have had to pay the contractor.

It'd never go to court. The cost for the client to defend it, would be too high.

2. They really do have a contract with the client. Honest. Hahahahaha.

Well if they don't - that's their fault. But I daresay you'd be pretty screwed if your agency didn't have a contract with the end client. think about it.

More male hen from an agent: there is nothing in any inferred agreement which would mean the client would have to pay the agent more than the margin they are seeking to avoid, and a court would undoubtedly say that the agencies' costs should be deducted from that even in the outstandingly remote chance that the court did fiond there was a contract in the first place.

Oh good - Tripe spouted by a contractor. You are speculating because you don't actually know. The terms of business, which are implied as accepted if a candidate is interviewed, generally states categorically, that this is the charge made. The Court will rule on the black and white presented to them ultimately. But remember - it'd never go to court.

As stated the max the client would have to pay would be the agency margin minus the agency costs of fulfilling the contract.

Where would the incentive to stop people cutting agents out every time? I refer you to various cases detailed on google.

Self-serving Tulipe from the resident leech. Why don't you get a proper job ?

Because then I'd have to deal with Bull tulip artists like you.

[2BIT]

whether TAV is right or not it is not going to affect you, client and agency may fall out but you can just stay out of it

[kellycell]

I would be more concerned with getting paid than upsetting the agent.

I suggest you check the company finances out - go to companies house to find out their turnover for the last few years and also google them.

If there figures are good fine - go direct. If they look a bit dodgy i.e. low sales, are funded by investment income, or you can't find them then stick with the agent and don't opt-out in the contract even though you legally can't.

Thank you all for your replies. Make total sense. My worry now is that if I say to the agency that the client asked me to go direct, then they would tell the client and the client might withdraw the offer..
Could you please give me the URL for the exact place at the companies house where I can look and find their turnover?
thank you!