Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?

[BolshieBastard]

One of the basic tenets of contract law is that there has to be an intention to create legal relations.

Yes and I doubt the argument that 'I considered what I was signing had no legal standing but, I signed it all the same and am now arguing I can ignore it because of what I first thought' would get very far in convincing a judge to side with you.

[meridian]

Yes and I doubt the argument that 'I considered what I was signing had no legal standing but, I signed it all the same and am now arguing I can ignore it because of what I first thought' would get very far in convincing a judge to side with you.

Perhaps, but there may be a case for the signing of an Opt Out ("either sign it or lose the contract") to be seen as undue pressure, duress, or coercive conduct, from which a judge can set aside whether or not the Opt Out is signed and to look at the case on the facts, particularly if the pressure to sign is unlawful and is designed to cause economic distress to one party if they do not sign.

[tractor]

Perhaps, but there may be a case for the signing of an Opt Out ("either sign it or lose the contract") to be seen as undue pressure, duress, or coercive conduct, from which a judge can set aside whether or not the Opt Out is signed and to look at the case on the facts, particularly if the pressure to sign is unlawful and is designed to cause economic distress to one party if they do not sign.

+1

Any court should look at the facts surrounding the reason anyone would sign (even if it could be proved that they knew it was not within the conditions of the Act).

We all know what pressure and outright lies every single agent applies when coercing contractors to opt out so for everyone, it is important to insist on everying in writing (even emails) and keeping the audit trail.

If it ever goes to court, they would see through the agent lies and I would hope, decide accordingly.

And as always, statute trumps everything.

[BolshieBastard]

Perhaps, but there may be a case for the signing of an Opt Out ("either sign it or lose the contract") to be seen as undue pressure, duress, or coercive conduct, from which a judge can set aside whether or not the Opt Out is signed and to look at the case on the facts, particularly if the pressure to sign is unlawful and is designed to cause economic distress to one party if they do not sign.

+1

Any court should look at the facts surrounding the reason anyone would sign (even if it could be proved that they knew it was not within the conditions of the Act).

We all know what pressure and outright lies every single agent applies when coercing contractors to opt out so for everyone, it is important to insist on everying in writing (even emails) and keeping the audit trail.

If it ever goes to court, they would see through the agent lies and I would hope, decide accordingly.

And as always, statute trumps everything.

But there isnt any class action to get this to court is there? That's the point. Until pcg ipse decides its a big enough issue to make it an action (and goodness knows why they havent \ wont make it so) the position is rather mute.

I still dont see any judge looking kindly on anyone signing the opt out then try and argue it doesnt apply to them having so signed.

We can debate the pressure of signing or no job but that is tenuous because any 'pressure' is exerted normally before interview when there is no job offer. I know from experience, rullion manchester would not submit my cv to client without signing. I told them where to go but I didnt lose a job over it because there wasnt one on the table.

[tractor]

...

But there isnt any class action to get this to court is there? That's the point. Until pcg ipse decides its a big enough issue to make it an action (and goodness knows why they havent \ wont make it so) the position is rather mute.

I still dont see any judge looking kindly on anyone signing the opt out then try and argue it doesnt apply to them having so signed.

We can debate the pressure of signing or no job but that is tenuous because any 'pressure' is exerted normally before interview when there is no job offer. I know from experience, rullion manchester would not submit my cv to client without signing. I told them where to go but I didnt lose a job over it because there wasnt one on the table.

Rullion's stance is unique in my experience. Most others simply follow the script card and don't even bother to mention it until there is an offer on the table or sometimes even after the contract is under negotiation and even as an afterthought once one has started the contract.

I am (trying) to have the same discussion with IPSE over the matter (for eight months now).

[malvolio]

IPSe can't do anything without both acknowledgement from BIS that companies are using the opt out to corrupt the market (they are, as we all know, but that's not the same thing) and are hiding behind the "anyone can decide who to work with" mantra, and someone willing to prosecute their agency for losses incurred as a result of inappropriate application of the AER provisions and mis-stating their status wrt the opt out (and remember that any such court case has to be started by an affected individual)

I don't know how many more times I have to say it but to date, neither of those two conditions have been met.

[BolshieBastard]

Rullion's stance is unique in my experience. Most others simply follow the script card and don't even bother to mention it until there is an offer on the table or sometimes even after the contract is under negotiation and even as an afterthought once one has started the contract.

I am (trying) to have the same discussion with IPSE over the matter (for eight months now).

TBH, I think if an offer is on the table after interview, Id be very surprised if the agent refused to progress if the contractor said they wanted to stay opted in.

After all, lots of people here say the contractor is in the boss seat once an offer is made and can negotiate a higher rate (where they've been put in at one lower than they really wanted).

Im not one bit surprised you are still trying after 8 months to get anywhere with pcg ipse over this issue.

[BolshieBastard]

IPSe can't do anything without both acknowledgement from BIS that companies are using the opt out to corrupt the market (they are, as we all know, but that's not the same thing) and are hiding behind the "anyone can decide who to work with" mantra, and someone willing to prosecute their agency for losses incurred as a result of inappropriate application of the AER provisions and mis-stating their status wrt the opt out (and remember that any such court case has to be started by an affected individual)

I don't know how many more times I have to say it but to date, neither of those two conditions have been met.

Dont talk soft. Of course they can do 'something' about it! They start a campaign to bring it to the attention of their tory mates and, the relevant trade and recruitment bodies etc.

This idea that you 'cannot do anything' without acknowledgement from others is frankly ludicrous but not a surprising one from you.

Kind of makes you wonder how lots of other campaigns every get off the ground if both sides have to be in agreement that there's a problem first.

[TheFaQQer]

TBH, I think if an offer is on the table after interview, Id be very surprised if the agent refused to progress if the contractor said they wanted to stay opted in.

Ajilon tried it with me - it was only after I rang the client contact on the weekend and said "has the agency told you I won't be there tomorrow?" and then explained why not that it got sorted. Before that, I'd told the agency I wouldn't sign the contract and they said "take it or leave it" assuming I'd back down.

Their main reason (or what they told me, anyway) was that being opted in meant that I could invoice at any stage and get paid, whereas the upper contract said that they had to invoice the client within six weeks or they wouldn't pay it.

[tractor]

.....

IPSe can't do anything without both acknowledgement from BIS that companies are using the opt out to corrupt the market (they are, as we all know, but that's not the same thing) and are hiding behind the "anyone can decide who to work with" mantra, and someone willing to prosecute their agency for losses incurred as a result of inappropriate application of the AER provisions and mis-stating their status wrt the opt out (and remember that any such court case has to be started by an affected individual)

I don't know how many more times I have to say it but to date, neither of those two conditions have been met.

Every time you do say it, I will remind you of events of last June where you, me, some IPSE Directors all contributed to several threads where I complained bitterly about Opt Out abuse and how it had affected me. At no time did IPSE offer to take up the mantle. A director asked me for details and I gave them and that was it. Which is at odds to your claim that you and IPSE have been actively looking for a case to take up. Of course, 8 months later, it is unlikely that my case would be appropriate now.

The last I heard was a CC member asking 'what abuse?'