Job fell through as Agency not on Clients PSL

[TykeMerc]

stationery

Oops, thanks.

[The Agents View]

Done nothing wrong? Really? The agent had no right to source for that client (nothing signed to say he can do so) and has wasted the clients and contractors time hoping that he can shoehorn himself in, once found out he is pretending he has an actual interest and demanding compensation. He will lose, I would take the role either direct or with an agency on the PSL, the rogue pimp can do eff all about it. Oh and this has everything to do with HR since they are the gatekeepers of who does or does not do work for them.

HR ARE the gatekeepers for who does or does not work for them.

But you do not WANT to work for them. You already work for your limited company, who have a B2B relationship, with the end client. Unless you are paying the relevant taxes via PAYE and are on the clients payroll??

Assuming the agent has followed the correct procedures, there is an implied contract via their terms and conditions (attached to the same email as your CV) upon interview, which is quite clear. I've only had to use that twice, but both times, the client has found the business was due my way, whether on the PSL or not.

[kal]

HR ARE the gatekeepers for who does or does not work for them.

But you do not WANT to work for them. You already work for your limited company, who have a B2B relationship, with the end client. Unless you are paying the relevant taxes via PAYE and are on the clients payroll??

Assuming the agent has followed the correct procedures, there is an implied contract via their terms and conditions (attached to the same email as your CV) upon interview, which is quite clear. I've only had to use that twice, but both times, the client has found the business was due my way, whether on the PSL or not.

I am not taking about the OP I am referring to the agency, the agency has no right to work for HR in a recruitment role. All this doesn't change the fact that he has wasted both the OPs and clients time by trying to shoehorn himself in.

[blacjac]

Done nothing wrong? Really? The agent had no right to source for that client (nothing signed to say he can do so) and has wasted the clients and contractors time hoping that he can shoehorn himself in, once found out he is pretending he has an actual interest and demanding compensation. He will lose, I would take the role either direct or with an agency on the PSL, the rogue pimp can do eff all about it. Oh and this has everything to do with HR since they are the gatekeepers of who does or does not do work for them.

HR ARE the gatekeepers for who does or does not work for them.

But you do not WANT to work for them. You already work for your limited company, who have a B2B relationship, with the end client. Unless you are paying the relevant taxes via PAYE and are on the clients payroll??

Assuming the agent has followed the correct procedures, there is an implied contract via their terms and conditions (attached to the same email as your CV) upon interview, which is quite clear. I've only had to use that twice, but both times, the client has found the business was due my way, whether on the PSL or not.

kal didn't say "who work for them", they said "who 'do' work for them".

There is a difference;.

[kal]

kal didn't say "who work for them", they said "who 'do' work for them".

There is a difference;.

Indeed.

[The Agents View]

I am not taking about the OP I am referring to the agency, the agency has no right to work for HR in a recruitment role. All this doesn't change the fact that he has wasted both the OPs and clients time by trying to shoehorn himself in.

Not at all. From what I can make out from this thread, the hiring manager asked the agent to look for a resource, the agent did so. They then agreed everything, and HR got involved at the last minute, in something which is nothing to do with them.

If it was to do with them, they'd be vetting every supplier in the business, which would make them a procurement department.

HR is for permies - not contractors.

[kal]

Not at all. From what I can make out from this thread, the hiring manager asked the agent to look for a resource, the agent did so. They then agreed everything, and HR got involved at the last minute, in something which is nothing to do with them.

If it was to do with them, they'd be vetting every supplier in the business, which would make them a procurement department.

HR is for permies - not contractors.

A naive and simplistic view of how business HR functions work, are you sure you're cut out to be an agent?

[TheFaQQer]

A naive and simplistic view of how business HR functions work, are you sure you're cut out to be an agent?

I've missed TAV over the past year, just for theories like this one.

[jmo21]

Done nothing wrong? Really? The agent had no right to source for that client (nothing signed to say he can do so) and has wasted the clients and contractors time hoping that he can shoehorn himself in, once found out he is pretending he has an actual interest and demanding compensation. He will lose, I would take the role either direct or with an agency on the PSL, the rogue pimp can do eff all about it. Oh and this has everything to do with HR since they are the gatekeepers of who does or does not do work for them.

that's not clear from the OP.

The manager at client co could have engaged the agent when he shouldn't have (because of the PSL).

And even if the agency had taken a flyer by putting a CV in, the manager should have rejected them immediately because of the PSL.

Not everywhere have a PSL believe it or not, and plenty that do, HR can still be booted into touch if the non-PSL agency have put forward the person you want

[Brussels Slumdog]

What most likely happened, is that agency asked another contractor for a reference. Agency managed to get the referee to interview you.
The agency tried to sneak in the backdoor to avoid the client's preferred supplier list.