Handcuff clauses as a client to an agent (non-IT)

[Boo]

One thing getting her from the agency solves is the fact that you know she is allowed to work in the UK.

As a private individual hiring a self-employed person you have no responsibility anyway so, meh.

Boo

[Boo]

Not really on-topic but our household hires a cleaner through an agency. The contract reads pretty similarly to a contractor contract, hence posting my question here, one clause in particular: ...damages and costs...

1. "Damages and costs" == margin + £50(ish) court fee even if it ever comes to that
2. In the interim you get the use of the money + interest on it
3. Just say that you no longer require a cleaner - they'll never find out
4. 1. + 2. +3. = meh

I don't really want to bring the matter up casually with them because then if we terminate, they'll be clued up to chase us.

Good point, I wouldn't either.

Boo

[northernladuk]

It has also been mentioned a number of times on other threads that 12 months is unenforceable as well. It breaches your basic right to work or something along those lines. Also at the end of the day it can only been invoked if proceedings are started which comes with considerable cost and some risk as well so highly unlikely action would be taken.

[Wanderer]

Because we've built up a level of trust with this one, don't want to start over... not to mention it's harsh on her when she's done good work.

I know what you mean. When you find a good one you want to hang on to them. Just get your spouse to engage the cleaner direct and cut out the agency. A 1 year lock in is a restraint of trade anyway.

[d000hg]

why not take a cleaner on directly. look for one via shop windowsa or word of mouth. much cheaper than paying a firm doing it although you wont get one insured but will be cheaper.

Because we've built up a level of trust with this one, don't want to start over... not to mention it's harsh on her when she's done good work.

One thing getting her from the agency solves is the fact that you know she is allowed to work in the UK.

In the NE that's not an issue Cleaners are typically older ladies, not young immigrants. Good point though.

[SueEllen]

Do the agency regulations apply to your cleaner.

They apply to all workers so they apply to the cleaner.

In regards to hiring the cleaner directly just get someone else in the household who didn't sign the contract with the agency to hire her and pay her. The agency would have to take the "householder" to court to enforce the contract and it would fail on that technicality.

One thing getting her from the agency solves is the fact that you know she is allowed to work in the UK.

[diesel]

why not take a cleaner on directly. look for one via shop windowsa or word of mouth. much cheaper than paying a firm doing it although you wont get one insured but will be cheaper.

[Wanderer]

Do the agency regulations apply to your cleaner and presuming the cleaner wasn't bullied into opting out then the handcuff clause is invalid.

[d000hg]

Just cancel the cleaner and pay them direct. Add 50% of the margin to keep the cleaner quiet.

That part is easy, the cleaner has no love for the agency and has other clients who do this. She's not even bothered about the extra money herself, she just sees it as a waste of money on our part

If they ever suggest that x is working for you deny it. Even if they see the cleaner entering your house carrying cleaning equipment its a lot of hassle for them to get the margin out of you through courts.

While I'm sure you're right, I don't personally feel comfortable breaking a contract just because I can get away with it.

Whose name is the contract in. You can't have a contract with a "household" but a person. So if its in your name hire them in your (presumably) wife's name. If its in both of your put the contract in the name of a friend, relative etc.

Good point, I will check this.

Or if you have a Ltd just get the company to pay for the cleaner. As the Ltd is a separate legal entity to yourself then it isn't the "householder". As long as you pay the company back the money it spends on the cleaner there is no BIK to pay

This is probably the simplest from the contract point of view but doesn't that open another can of worms? Even if I pay the company back isn't it weird to use the company to pay for personal things for convenience?
Technically I could AFAIK claim a % of the cleaning costs as a business expense since I work 100% from home... based on HMRC guidelines I claim already:

work_from_home_expenses = (office_floorspace/total_floorspace) * household_bills

[Sockpuppet]

Not really on-topic but our household hires a cleaner through an agency. The contract reads pretty similarly to a contractor contract, hence posting my question here, one clause in particular:

We've come to the conclusion the insurance the agency provides isn't worth the fee and would rather go direct but the contract seems pretty clear However it's kind of a pain since it enforces a hand-cuff clause from the termination, i.e we can't use them for a year then switch and leave them with a year's worth of margin... either we give in forever or we have to break the clause to keep the same person. I imagine many IT contracts are worded very similarly... is there any reasonable way out to compromise without getting in hot water? I don't really want to bring the matter up casually with them because then if we terminate, they'll be clued up to chase us.

Just cancel the cleaner and pay them direct. Add 50% of the margin to keep the cleaner quiet. If they ever suggest that x is working for you deny it. Even if they see the cleaner entering your house carrying cleaning equipment its a lot of hassle for them to get the margin out of you through courts.

Whose name is the contract in. You can't have a contract with a "household" but a person. So if its in your name hire them in your (presumably) wife's name. If its in both of your put the contract in the name of a friend, relative etc.

Or if you have a Ltd just get the company to pay for the cleaner. As the Ltd is a separate legal entity to yourself then it isn't the "householder". As long as you pay the company back the money it spends on the cleaner there is no BIK to pay.

Simples.

[d000hg]

Not really on-topic but our household hires a cleaner through an agency. The contract reads pretty similarly to a contractor contract, hence posting my question here, one clause in particular:

9.5. For a period of twelve months following termination of the Agreement for any reason, the Householder shall not engage, directly or indirectly, as an employee, contractor, agent or otherwise any Cleaner who has been introduced by Supplier to the Householder. If the Householder does so engage a Cleaner in contravention of this Clause, then Supplier shall institute proceedings against the Householder to recover damages and costs.

We've come to the conclusion the insurance the agency provides isn't worth the fee and would rather go direct but the contract seems pretty clear However it's kind of a pain since it enforces a hand-cuff clause from the termination, i.e we can't use them for a year then switch and leave them with a year's worth of margin... either we give in forever or we have to break the clause to keep the same person. I imagine many IT contracts are worded very similarly... is there any reasonable way out to compromise without getting in hot water? I don't really want to bring the matter up casually with them because then if we terminate, they'll be clued up to chase us.