Am I asking for trouble?

[jmo21]

I've seen other end clients tell the agency to quit complaining or they will be taken off the supplier list.

Same happened with me and another 'tractor years back. Client wanted to keep us on for an extra month just as they were ending all ties with the agency. Agency hit the roof. Client told them to ram it and if they ever wanted any chance of getting back on the PSL they should pipe down. They did.

[CoolCat]

I have seen end clients "buy out" the agency. So rather than continue to pay their mark up they pay a one off fee to the agency and hire the contractor direct. It's usually the easiest way in these kind of circumstances. Same happens if end client takes contractor on as a permie. I've seen other end clients tell the agency to quit complaining or they will be taken off the supplier list.

[northernladuk]

To be fair, Opt Out status is not mentioned in the OP nor is the length of the handcuff clause. We would need to know both in determining whether the handcuff is legal according to the Conduct Regs. Even if it is legal, there is still a very real possibility that there is precedent for it to be 'restraint of trade'. Let's face it, agents are not known for their reticence to push the boundaries.

He's effectively direct with his consultancy. No mention of an agent so non of this would be valid.

NLUK, I guess the OP is placing some faith in the client being 'onside' simply because most clients have jelly backbones and the moment an agent mentions 'lawyer', the Human Remains dept runs a mile. Having a steadfast client at your back esp where agents are trying it on is a good thing although sometimes rare.

Agreed but again no agents. Direct with consultancy who will be a bit more robust in protecting their business.

[tractor]

....

Just finished a contract through an agency into a small consultancy (ClientCo) and then working with their Client. Consultancy were marking up my day rate by over 100% and adding on extra permies for "oversight".
I've got a good relationship with the guy I've been working with in the consultancy's Client and he's told me that there is no chance of them agreeing to pay what the consultancy are asking for me so he wants me to go direct.
The problem is that the agency has the usual "not working for 6 months for ClientCo or ClientCo's client" clause and the consultancy are still doing business with other divisions of the end Client.

The end Client's plan is that I go in through the services arm of their preferred agency. New contract would be with the services arm not the end Client but would involve working in the end clients office.
My thoughts are that if a friend of consultancy or even someone from consultancy sees me then it'll go nasty fast.

I've had a similar situation before but everyone knew exactly what was going on and the consultancy agreed that it was a good plan of action with the end Client. This time it all seems to be behind the consultancy's back and so they don't know that I'm going back.

Am I asking for trouble or am I worrying too much?

To be fair, Opt Out status is not mentioned in the OP nor is the length of the handcuff clause. We would need to know both in determining whether the handcuff is legal according to the Conduct Regs. Even if it is legal, there is still a very real possibility that there is precedent for it to be 'restraint of trade'. Let's face it, agents are not known for their reticence to push the boundaries.

NLUK, I guess the OP is placing some faith in the client being 'onside' simply because most clients have jelly backbones and the moment an agent mentions 'lawyer', the Human Remains dept runs a mile. Having a steadfast client at your back esp where agents are trying it on is a good thing although sometimes rare.

[Harmonic]

Thanks everyone.
I've had something along the lines of Northernlad's Option 2 before but this looks like it's being done behind the backs of everyone. I'm not happy as when the consultancy and the agency find out they'll not be happy and if the consultancy threaten to go legal with the end client then you can be sure I'll be straight out he door.
I'm not willing to risk the agro for the sake of three months at an unimpressive rate so I'm going to say I'm not interested unless everyone is aware of the situation.

[psychocandy]

I've been in this situation once a long time ago. Client (Halifax, as was) wanted to move me to a role on renewal that was supplied by a third party (HDS) and away from agency (Hays). Hays kicked up about it when they found out a couple of weeks later. Client 'sorted' it and Hays backed down. Not 100% sure what the client did, but Hays went from being mighty pissed of to ignoring the situation within a couple of days. Under the right circumstances, it can be done, but needs a lot of desire by client to do it.

Hays told to drop it or you can forget about any business with us in the future more than likely.

Hays are like this. They get their foot in the door and like to stay there. Act like nobheads, get found out and then back down. They're good at weaseling out of any trouble though I've found.

[northernladuk]

I've been in this situation once a long time ago. Client (Halifax, as was) wanted to move me to a role on renewal that was supplied by a third party (HDS) and away from agency (Hays). Hays kicked up about it when they found out a couple of weeks later. Client 'sorted' it and Hays backed down. Not 100% sure what the client did, but Hays went from being mighty pissed of to ignoring the situation within a couple of days. Under the right circumstances, it can be done, but needs a lot of desire by client to do it.

Could be that Hays were not representing that role so the handcuff failed the fairness test?

[TestMangler]

Just finished a contract through an agency into a small consultancy (ClientCo) and then working with their Client. Consultancy were marking up my day rate by over 100% and adding on extra permies for "oversight".
I've got a good relationship with the guy I've been working with in the consultancy's Client and he's told me that there is no chance of them agreeing to pay what the consultancy are asking for me so he wants me to go direct.
The problem is that the agency has the usual "not working for 6 months for ClientCo or ClientCo's client" clause and the consultancy are still doing business with other divisions of the end Client.

The end Client's plan is that I go in through the services arm of their preferred agency. New contract would be with the services arm not the end Client but would involve working in the end clients office.
My thoughts are that if a friend of consultancy or even someone from consultancy sees me then it'll go nasty fast.

I've had a similar situation before but everyone knew exactly what was going on and the consultancy agreed that it was a good plan of action with the end Client. This time it all seems to be behind the consultancy's back and so they don't know that I'm going back.

Am I asking for trouble or am I worrying too much?

I've been in this situation once a long time ago. Client (Halifax, as was) wanted to move me to a role on renewal that was supplied by a third party (HDS) and away from agency (Hays). Hays kicked up about it when they found out a couple of weeks later. Client 'sorted' it and Hays backed down. Not 100% sure what the client did, but Hays went from being mighty pissed of to ignoring the situation within a couple of days. Under the right circumstances, it can be done, but needs a lot of desire by client to do it.

[northernladuk]

Get your handcuff clause properly checked out by a lawyer.

Some agency handcuff clauses will stick others won't especially if the client is on your side and understands the clause as well.

I don't see the client being on your side will make any difference to whether handcuffs will stick not. They are fair and reasonable with demonstrated loss or they are not. I'd say this is a clear case of poaching resources. I expect this exists in the upper contract between client and consultancy not just in the OPs contract.

I think what you mean is they can work it out without having to invoke the clause or start fighting, something you'd think the consultancy would want to avoid like the plague. ...but it does set a dangerous precedent the consultancy won't want.

It's a complex one buy IMO the only way to solve this is if ALL parties discuss and act fairly and reasonably. Going behind anyone's back is not going to work out well.. And to be honest there is no need to. There are plenty of options. All of which I have seen happen with the same client and same consultancy in a gig I was on.

1. Client tries to steal you and consultancy says no. Client can't proceed as supplier management will probably reign him in. If they are big enough blackmailing them with the threat of no more work will wash. SM won't risk legal action. Everyone loses out.

2. All of you agree to let you work direct for good will. Have to be some good stuff coming for your consultancy though.

3. The consultancy sees that the client wants you so drops the rate just for you to something more reasonable, kind of a loss leader for goodwill. Again, a dangerous precedent for the consultancy so a gamble. All have to be involved though.

As I said, I've seen all three. Really depends on the attitudes of your client and consultancy and what's in it for the consultancy which only you can say knowing them I am afraid.

[SueEllen]

Get your handcuff clause properly checked out by a lawyer.

Some agency handcuff clauses will stick others won't especially if the client is on your side and understands the clause as well.

[Harmonic]

Just finished a contract through an agency into a small consultancy (ClientCo) and then working with their Client. Consultancy were marking up my day rate by over 100% and adding on extra permies for "oversight".
I've got a good relationship with the guy I've been working with in the consultancy's Client and he's told me that there is no chance of them agreeing to pay what the consultancy are asking for me so he wants me to go direct.
The problem is that the agency has the usual "not working for 6 months for ClientCo or ClientCo's client" clause and the consultancy are still doing business with other divisions of the end Client.

The end Client's plan is that I go in through the services arm of their preferred agency. New contract would be with the services arm not the end Client but would involve working in the end clients office.
My thoughts are that if a friend of consultancy or even someone from consultancy sees me then it'll go nasty fast.

I've had a similar situation before but everyone knew exactly what was going on and the consultancy agreed that it was a good plan of action with the end Client. This time it all seems to be behind the consultancy's back and so they don't know that I'm going back.

Am I asking for trouble or am I worrying too much?