Handcuff - is 12 months unacceptable by law?

[northernladuk]

Correct. As I said/tried to say () earlier, the 12 month clause has proved unenforceable based on previous threads here, so the clause would be ignored in a court case rather than reduced to 6 months (which have been upheld and imo are reasonable - the agent has found the client/contractor match and deserve their reward).

Which is a good start, but to the OP, once the agent starts bullying the client and their legal teams get involved it could quite possibly be the case that it becomes too high a risk and they walk away from it.

Best approach IMO is not just assume off the cuff that you are in the clear because of the legal precedent. Just take every situation on a case by case basis and see how it pans out. Sometimes it will fold at the first email and it's happy days, sometimes it will get in to a protracted argument between the two agents and the client which doesn't always end well and all the handbagging between those two extremes.

What this whole thread has missed so far is the fair and reasonable test though.

For a handcuff to even be considered (forgetting timescales for now) is that it has to be fair and reasonable, i.e. the agent has to be able to prove a tangible loss. Until they do the handcuff can't even be invoked, let alone after whatever time period. An example of this is where you worked for Agent A at Client A. You leave, Agent B offers you a gig at Client A. Agent A is NOT representing that role and is not eligible to do so for one reason or another. Agent A cannot use the handcuff as they cannot lose any money as they are not representing the gig.
So in the OP's situation, if the new agent wants to place you and the old agent isn't in the running then fill your boots. The handcuff is invalid.

If, however, you find out agent A is indeed offering the gig then it all gets very complicated. Some clients will allow the original agent dibs however long and pull you off agent B and back to Agent A. In cases like this Agent B will know this is the score and be a bit peeved but not put a fight up. A certain financial client somewhere around Bradford does this.
If, in the worst case, it's a straight race between A and B and agent A get's wind he's going to complain to the client and point out lots of clauses, the client will then have to make a call on whether they can be bothered if it's work the risk and so on.

IMO You can't dismiss a handcuff situation outright just because the 12th months isn't enforceable... There is a lot more to it and a lot more that can go wrong for you enforceable or not......

[LondonManc]

To the OP how will the original agency ever know, you are a long distant memory to them, fill your boots!

Correct. As I said/tried to say () earlier, the 12 month clause has proved unenforceable based on previous threads here, so the clause would be ignored in a court case rather than reduced to 6 months (which have been upheld and imo are reasonable - the agent has found the client/contractor match and deserve their reward).

[SlipTheJab]

To the OP how will the original agency ever know, you are a long distant memory to them, fill your boots!

[LondonManc]

You are aware these threads are searchable from Google?

So it's a good idea to write an answer so a newbie doesn't have to ask the question again and again and again....

It hasn't particularly stopped them in that past though.

[SueEllen]

Don't you start.

You are aware these threads are searchable from Google?

So it's a good idea to write an answer so a newbie doesn't have to ask the question again and again and again....

[LondonManc]

But that's not what it read like.

Don't you start.

[northernladuk]

I know you don't, I was talking about the clause being rendered null and void.

But that's not what it read like.

[LondonManc]

You don't nullify an entire contract with one stupid clause. The rest of the contract is still valid.

In addition if the void parts can be crossed out of the clause, then it's still valid.

I know you don't, I was talking about the clause being rendered null and void.

[SueEllen]

Ridiculous clause in the contract, rendering it null and void.

You don't nullify an entire contract with one stupid clause. The rest of the contract is still valid.

In addition if the void parts can be crossed out of the clause, then it's still valid.

[SueEllen]

I'm not aware it's gone legal to test over 6 months so jury is out.

Over 6 months has been tested in the courts but most cases aren't in the higher courts and don't involve IT contractors. The cases you can find quoted tend to involve permanent employees particularly those in sales.

The cases I know personally involve other small businesses/freelancers and permanent employees including in IT.

[WTFH]

Handcuff - is 12 months unacceptable by law?

30%? I've just pulled out the wording of a contract I had through an agent where section 3.1 said 25%, but everything else was worded exactly the same.

Makes me wonder. Have you searched for said agent on here to see what others think of them?
Perhaps they have upped it to 30% to recover the money they lost when I went legal with them.

[northernladuk]

Ridiculous clause in the contract, rendering it null and void.

Erm... Id be very careful about the wording of that sentence. It could infer something that's not true.

[LondonManc]

Yes, 12 months is generally regarded as unacceptable.

Ridiculous clause in the contract, rendering it null and void.

There's no leeway on appeal for the agent to have it reduced to 6, so you can do what you like.

[northernladuk]

You've seen these threads?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ha...obile&ie=UTF-8

Your first problem is the hassle caused and being dropped before it goes legal to be honest.

The general consensus is 12 months isn't enforceable. Anything over 6 is questionable but it's a case of who blinks first if the situation occurs. I'm not aware it's gone legal to test over 6 months so jury is out.

[redhotchiliflea]

Hi all,

I've been reading a lot about the handcuff rule and have read a few posts that make it a bit unclear.

I have the below condition and now have the opportunity to work with the same end client after 8 months of leaving. Is 12 months enforceable? is this deemed "Anti-competitive" as i have been asked by a different Hirer to go back to the same end user (which would in turn be getting paid by either the hirer, or a new agency)

I opted out (now i have my regrets!)

3 The Supplier shall and shall procure that the Representative shall

3.1 not during the Contract Period or thereafter for a period of 12 months either directly or indirectly (whether under a contract of

services or contract for services or through any third party) provide any services to the Hirer or End User in any capacity except

by contract through the Agency unless the Supplier shall first have paid to the Agency a fee of 30% of the total remuneration

including the value of benefits attributed by HM Revenue & Customs agreed to be paid or provided by the Hirer or End User for

the relevant period of provision of such services (but not exceeding 12 months) plus VAT;