Initial contract with agency; then approached direct by client

[evilagent]

You are initially offered a contract at a client through an agency.
All good, except for those dastardly pimps. (boo, hiss)

So, the contract completes.

Then, a couple of months later the client, impressed with your previous work, calls you directly.

Just to be clear; at the second contract, the agency are NOT entitled to a fee? Right?

Basically, I am asking, is there a minimum period of time that needs to elapse for the agency no longer considering a new contract as an "extension", and thus, a margin cut?

The context to the above is that I, during my evil skullduggery of recruiting recently, I got asked by a client to pop over and do some work for them, since I am familiar with their systems.

I am also in a quandary, as to how much margin I should charge myself?

[moggy]

what was the restriction clause on the contract?

[TheFaQQer]

Just to be clear; at the second contract, the agency are NOT entitled to a fee? Right?

Nope.

What does the contract between agent and client say? What does the contract between contractor and agent say? What was the opt-out status of the contractor? How long has it been between the start of the previous contract with the client? How long has it been since the end of the previous contract with the client?

Without knowing the answer to all of those questions, you can't determine whether a fee is due or not.

[northernladuk]

And wouldn't it depend on your opt in/out status as well?

What do you mean extra margin? You mean the bit the agent was getting? Remember that was payment for their services. If they are not being used don't assume you will get the extra. Just negotiate on the rate you want.

[Wanderer]

Then, a couple of months later the client, impressed with your previous work, calls you directly. Just to be clear; at the second contract, the agency are NOT entitled to a fee? Right?

If the worker didn't opt out then the restraint of trade can't be enforced beyond 14 weeks from the start or 8 weeks from the end of the engagement.

If the worker did opt out then that's their stupid mistake and it depends on what it says in the contract (often as long as 12 months).

[BolshieBastard]

If the worker didn't opt out then the restraint of trade can't be enforced beyond 14 weeks from the start or 8 weeks from the end of the engagement.

If the worker did opt out then that's their stupid mistake and it depends on what it says in the contract (often as long as 12 months).

Not all agencies will put you forward for a role if you insist on being opted in, such as rullion for one.

So its not a 'stupid mistake' if the contractor isnt opted in.

[SueEllen]

And to further complicate things the restraint of trade may or may not be enforceable depending on how it's worded.

So I would get out your contract, have a good read and if in doubt consult a contract lawyer as we can only give our opinions........

[northernladuk]

Not all agencies will put you forward for a role if you insist on being opted in, such as rullion for one.

So its not a 'stupid mistake' if the contractor isnt opted in.

Will second that I am afraid.

[TheFaQQer]

Not all agencies will put you forward for a role if you insist on being opted in, such as rullion for one.

So its not a 'stupid mistake' if the contractor isnt opted in.

I thought that was a breach of the regulations?? Get it in writing and contact whatever the department that Cable runs is called these days.

I've had stupid contract terms offered in the past because I was opted in, but never been refused to be put forward. Of course, you could rely on the fact that most agencies don't know how to opt out properly to convince them you are out when the reality is different.

[Wanderer]

I thought that was a breach of the regulations?? Get it in writing and contact whatever the department that Cable runs is called these days.

Yes, it is a breach of the regulations and you should report them as detailed in this post.