Reply to: New agency regs

But it could have been because they felt sorry for you?

Mailman

you missed the point of my 12% quote

yes I knew the 12% was per annum, but where else can you get anywhere approaching 12% these days ?

but the big issue was that the agency paid up without me going to any real effort. I suspect this was primarily due to the EAR position rather than them feeling sorry for me or being threatened with a 12% per annum charge

Well its 12% over an entire year...so really you can only ping them 1% each month plus something like £60 collection cost on top of that. Hardly going to make them cough up.

Face it...agents are scum.

Mailman

they coughed up in full...no apology, no offer of another contract elsewhere either LOL

2 years of living out of a suitcase, to-ing and fro-ing between london and dublin every weekend was enough for me

remember also, 2 years ago rates were pretty poor, in all that time the agency never lifted a finger to increase the rate (or if they did it never got passed on)

just happy to be back home now !

However, I'm sure people really want to know how I get on with the DTI, and legal action against these crooks, watch this space...

BTW I hit them with a quote from the "late payment legislation" which allows me to charge 12% on money outstanding, will see if I have a nice little nest egg when this is all over

Your best bet will probably be the small claims court (county court) but before you do that do get proper legal advice (should cost no more than £100 for the 10-20 minutes of work required from them).

However, this does beg the question...why didnt you ask the client what was going on?

Mailman

Do you mean that the agency should have offered the role to you in the first place?
I don't think so
They can place whoever they like - as long as the client's happy with their choice.
Now if you can prove that they lied to the client, for example, tell them that you were not willing to work there any more (and provided it isn't true), then maybe you have some sort of case.... but I guess that would be very hard to prove so I doubt you would have a case at all.

Now regarding oervdue payment... of course you have a very strong case there!

Interestingly, I found out from my old colleagues, a new contractor has been taken on to perform my old support role

Currently trying to find out if the same agent placed this new contractor

If so, anyone know if this situation is actionable ?

Re: New agency regs - YUP

I was with an agency for 18 months quite happily (c*mputer-pe*ple in dublin), then a new agent turned up and the relationship turned pear-shaped

Her attitude sucked when I asked for some simple IR35 friendly clauses added to the contract extension...none of this was done, and it was one excuse after another

A short time later she declared that my contract was not being extended, even though the support role I was performing in dublin clearly still needed to be performed. But by this time I had enough, and was happy to leave...

After leaving, I found that my last 2 signed and faxed timesheets, had not been paid. When enquiring about these I was sent the following...

"I have made several attempts to contact you both by telephone and by email.
I have received information that you are still on site. Until you clarify the situation I cannot release payment"

Despite not having been contacted at all, I patiently explained EAR in detail, and warned of legal action if payments continued to be witheld. Remember it was the agency that stated the contract was not to be extended.

Despite tantilising promises of payment, tempered with phrases like

"Thanks I'll forward to our legal department. Where are you now working?
Grainne"

I have not received payment, so will be letting loose with the DTI employment agency regulatory team, and legal action on monday (2+ months after the contract ended)

BTW I haven't signed a new contract, as having worked my *ss off for these blood suckers for 2 years, I wanted some time at home !

Response to clairenw

Some of the reasons I steer clear of contractors are stated in an earlier response above.

The other reasons are:-

1)Hassle over IR35 and agency regs.
2)Total lack of respect from both clients and contractors who see you as a pointless parasite.
3)Too much money required up front to pay the contractor.
4)Not enough profit for the risk.
5)Too much insistence on the agency staying in the loop rather than just taking a single fixed fee.

The list is almost endless.

Placing permies is much more pleasant particularly when you interview them as I do.
Clients see the value.
Permies are generally respectful.
Fees are fixed and one-off.

As tim123 says, I also am very skeptical about placing contractors in permy positions for very good reasons but that is quite another subject

Re: What's opting out got to do with the @#%$

Er, thanks for all your opinions. I understand that agencies are not allowed to insist that I opt out. However in this case, they state that their client is insisting on it. Either way, I'm tempted not to go for it. The contract isn't a definite anyway, and they want me to get PI Insurance, which I don't believe I need for the type of work I do. Best to cut my losses and put my efforts into getting other contracts I think.

Thanks anyway. This is the first time I've used this site, and it's been very helpful, and quick responses too.

Re: What's opting out got to do with the @#%$

Actually...you dont have to go to court. Your one and only call might be to the Department of Trade and Industry who regulate agents.

Mailman

ps. Ok...the absolute utter waddle was for Claire

Re: What's opting out got to do with the @#%$

1) I did not say that the clients were insisting on opted out candidates only. Claire said it 5 posts before. All I did was copied it. I agree it is possibly not true, but that is not the point I was making.

2) I agree, your rights to force payment are (slightly) stronger if you opt-in. This is a very very very long way from "opted out you have no come back if they decide not to pay you". A right to be paid after 10 days is worthless if they decide just not to pay you, you still have to go to court to get your money. In any case you've mis-read, the right to payment "is no more than 10 days after the agency have received it", but as they will be paid on 30, 60 or 90 days this is useless to most people. You will want to have contractual rights to payment long before the agency have been paid, opted in or out.

There are good reasons to be opted in: you get some nanny clauses in your contract and some certainty that the job really exists (I wish that I could opt of the rest and keep this)at the expense of the agency being REQUIRED to validate my suitability for the job before being put forward, this not unreasonably IMO equate to the agency following up your references.

There are good reasons to be opted-out. The agency have lower costs and less risk, so they should pay me more. Whether such an expectation is workable in the real world I do not know.

tim

Re: What's opting out got to do with the @#%$

Absolute and utter waddle Tim. Its the agents that are wanting you to opt out not the client. Whether you are opted out or in makes no difference what so ever to the client.

IF the agent is addiment this is the case then get them to put that in writing.

Under the new regs there are specific provisions that prohibit agencies from with holding pay from you. If you opt out you will lose this protection and it will probably cost you more than the money being with held to get it back off the dodgy bastards should they not pay you.

The regs also state that any money paid MUST be paid to you within 10 days and that they cannot make something like signed sheets a condition of being paid.

Once again...you would be a fool to opt out of a contract.

Mailman

Re: What's opting out got to do with the @#%$

Dunno either,

ut the legal view appears to be that they have the right to insist on only deaing with opted out contractors if they should so decide.

If they do this, there's zip all that you can do to stop them.

tim