Unless the services are defined as being for this one client on this specific project, i personally wouldn't agree to the clause.
As has been said these clauses are written to protect the agency's revenue stream and that shouldn't be an issue normally. However this clause seems to be saying the op can't work anywhere other than through this agency.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "How common is that in contracts and should I ask to have this removed?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostThis protects the agent's revenue stream so not a chance they will remove it.
It is actually unenforceable in most cases as it's far too generic and 12 months is too long. No chance that will stand up in court. Handcuffs have to be fair and reasonable that that one is not. Doesn't really help you knowing that because the agent will try pull it and you might have to get lawyered up to defend it.
That said... Does it even make sense? Looks very badly written to me but them I'm a bit crap at legalese.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DeludedKitten View PostI think there is something in the agency regulations that means that you can get away with going direct regardless of the contract, but it depends on whether you are inside or outside the regulations.
I wouldn't want to test it, particularly as sensible negotiation (ideally pre-contract) will usually fix the problem.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostNot the best advice I don't think
A fair point though. But just to ruffle your feathers still more, before the whole Private Sector IR35 malarkey popped up, and while people were confused about how IR35 operated and were calling out to the HMRC for clarity, my thinking on this score was actually, "Leave it as is, because all the court cases are coming down in contractors' favours."
Clarity through changes might have made the devil we knew to become a problem.
Anyway, not highlighting the opposing teams' errors of their ways is all I'm trying to exemplify.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Criticular View PostHow common is that in contracts and should I ask to have this removed before signing?
I think there is something in the agency regulations that means that you can get away with going direct regardless of the contract, but it depends on whether you are inside or outside the regulations.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by simes View PostAlternatively, if the consensus is that the current wording is unenforceable, sign the contract, do the gig and if going direct is a later option, do it knowing there will likely not be a problem...!
Not the best advice I don't thinkLast edited by northernladuk; 12 April 2019, 13:12.
Leave a comment:
-
Alternatively, if the consensus is that the current wording is unenforceable, sign the contract, do the gig and if going direct is a later option, do it knowing there will likely not be a problem...!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Criticular View PostA contract says:
How common is that in contracts and should I ask to have this removed before signing?
There was a guy back in 2016 who talked about minimising it...
https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...t=#post2301627
Originally posted by Someone View PostWhat do you look for and try to renegotiate in a new contract?
...- minimise period of time when you cannot work directly with a client if they want your service again
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Criticular View PostDid anyone try to say to an agent remove it or I will not sign?
It is actually unenforceable in most cases as it's far too generic and 12 months is too long. No chance that will stand up in court. Handcuffs have to be fair and reasonable that that one is not. Doesn't really help you knowing that because the agent will try pull it and you might have to get lawyered up to defend it.
That said... Does it even make sense? Looks very badly written to me but them I'm a bit crap at legalese.
services of the Contractor other than through Agency,
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cid View Postthis is very common..
its to stop you going direct to the client and suggesting you cut out the middle man.
Leave a comment:
-
this is very common..
its to stop you going direct to the client and suggesting you cut out the middle man.
Leave a comment:
-
How common is that in contracts and should I ask to have this removed?
A contract says:
In the event the Contractor within the 12 months during or following the cessation or termination of the Agreement, provide the services of the Contractor other than through Agency, the Contractor shall pay the appropriate transfer fee of 12 x the weekly Contractor rate specified in the Schedule.Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: