Whose loss it is?

[ChimpMaster]

Am I the only one wondering what this 'new' technology is?

[Wanderer]

Now after about 6 months, I am looking for a new role, and thought I should approach the client and inform them about my availability. Did it, and the end client insisted that I should come through the agency as they were the ones who initiated the contact some time ago.

If the agency are only taking about 10% then they are most likely on the preferred suppliers list so you would probably end up working though them anyway.

After 6 months you aren't tied to any agency though, you can do whatever you like. That's presuming you declined to sign the opt out they sent you.....

[centurian]

If the agency are only taking about 10% then they are most likely on the preferred suppliers list so you would probably end up working though them anyway.

After 6 months you aren't tied to any agency though, you can do whatever you like. That's presuming you declined to sign the opt out they sent you.....

I don't think the OP is tied to the agency at all. The problem is that ClientCo are bound the agency, although whether this is because of explicit legal reasons - or they simply can't be arsed to engage direct/go through another agency is unclear.

[rd409]

Am I the only one wondering what this 'new' technology is?

The "New" (?) technology is Amazon Web Services. It is not so new in US, but has just started picking up in UK. Not many developers in UK and the Bob's code is crap. So am living a dream at the moment.

[Wanderer]

I don't think the OP is tied to the agency at all. The problem is that ClientCo are bound the agency, although whether this is because of explicit legal reasons - or they simply can't be arsed to engage direct/go through another agency is unclear.

The client is not bound by the 6 or 12 month restraint of trade unless the contractor opted out of the agency regulations.

You are right though - if the client doesn't want to have the fight then that's the end of it really. The contractor has to do what they say.

[BolshieBastard]

Bit tricky to change contract law though, isn't it? And how do you propose they fight a court case that hasn't happened?

The problem is the OP's to resolve, as I said earler. The handcuff can't be applied if there's no reasonable expectation of income, which is the position the agency have put themselves in.

Hasnt stopped them trying to get IR35 changed. Hasnt stopped them taking on 'test' cases.

All they have to do is say to their members they are looking to take an unreasonable 'handcuff' clause forward as a test case. I'd have thought they wouldnt be short of takers.

[TheFaQQer]

Who is the bigger loser?

You, for using the phrase "telephonic interview"

[Wanderer]

All they have to do is say to their members they are looking to take an unreasonable 'handcuff' clause forward as a test case. I'd have thought they wouldnt be short of takers.

I'd be interested to see this happen too. The trouble is that the agency would just back down in the face of the big guns for fear of setting a precedent and upsetting their whole way of doing business. If the restraint of trade works in 90% of the cases then they will be happy enough with that. You can't win 'em all and if you get some angry little bastard then you just back down.

Of course the PCG could take a few cases on and publish them as case studies: Took on agency "X" with restraint of trade clause "Y" and they backed down. Eventually the agencies would have to stand up and fight...

[Ignis Fatuus]

You, for using the phrase "telephonic interview"

Entretien téléphonique.

Simple(s)!