Reply to: Agency tie-in 6Months need advice

[northernladuk]

NLUK and Coolcat you are both fighting about nothing.

Until we have the exact wording of the handcuff clause you can say if it's enforceable or not.

I've had handcuff clauses in my own contracts which are unenforceable and the agents have been told it. However more amusingly is that they don't know what to do to make the clause enforceable.

This. Nearly every thread we have on behalf of a 'friend' ends up like this as very little detail is passed on and we can never get to the bottom of it so the thread just goes south. Why people can't start their own threads I don't know.

In most cases handcuffs are threatened but they are not fair or reasonable so will fail. Going perm from a contract or trying to go back to the same gig under a new agent tend to be the few cases that are as the agent can prove loss so tend to have the upper hand.

To give Coolcat some credit I am also happy for them to put unenforceable terms in and then point this fact out at the time they try and pull it. Another good example of this is trying to enforce opt out after you've started at the client. It's just not worth pointing as it just causes and argument. I'll just wait till they pull it and then point the situation out.

[northernladuk]

Oh name calling! I do have experience with that from the kids!

[SueEllen]

Yes but it is still good advice to the original poster to get the clause checked out along these lines. It would be entirely possible for only the umbrella to be restricted and not the individual contractor, for instance.

Problem is if you use an umbrella you don't see the contract. So the agency can and probably has put random clauses in that are unenforceable. The umbrella company doesn't care as long as the agency pay them and they can take a cut of your money.

I don't tell agents when their contract clauses are unenforceable, its better they don't know until the day you choose to use that knowledge, they would only try and put an enforceable clause in at renewal or similar which is not in your interests.

If you use a solicitor to review your contracts then you via them are required to tell the agency something along the lines of that clause is unenforceable remove it/change it or my client will ignore it.

Most agencies check you are using a solicitor and then will agree to modify the contract as appropriate.

[CoolCat]

NLUK and Coolcat you are both fighting about nothing.

Until we have the exact wording of the handcuff clause you can say if it's enforceable or not.

I've had handcuff clauses in my own contracts which are unenforceable and the agents have been told it. However more amusingly is that they don't know what to do to make the clause enforceable.

Yes but it is still good advice to the original poster to get the clause checked out along these lines. It would be entirely possible for only the umbrella to be restricted and not the individual contractor, for instance. I don't tell agents when their contract clauses are unenforceable, its better they don't know until the day you choose to use that knowledge, they would only try and put an enforceable clause in at renewal or similar which is not in your interests. As for my esteemed Northern colleague, I'm getting bored at him spouting on every topic under the sun and his self perception that he knows more than everyone else on the entire planet about everything.

[SueEllen]

NLUK and Coolcat you are both fighting about nothing.

Until we have the exact wording of the handcuff clause you can say if it's enforceable or not.

I've had handcuff clauses in my own contracts which are unenforceable and the agents have been told it. However more amusingly is that they don't know what to do to make the clause enforceable.

[CoolCat]

NorthernNob,

I'm amazed at your superior knowledge. I've only been doing this for over 30 years. I have only had the contracts of most of the major agencies reviewed as both the contractor and other times the hiring manager. I have seen agencies trying to enforce such clauses, and know the pitfalls. Where agencies are especially knobish and have upset both contractors and end clients, by for instance bribing managers, or themselves breaking strict confidentiality agreements, its pretty reasonable for both the end client and the contractors to tell the agency where to get off, threaten them with breach of contract and other actions, and point on in precise detail why their clauses are not enforceable. But then you know it all already.

[northernladuk]

Ffs cos sometimes they ain't as bright as they think they are. One of the big agencies has just such a clause. You seem like a plonker just out to argue with limited experience.

Technically all handcuffs are on the Ltd as that is who the contract is with, not you as an individual. In many cases the wording will cover the individual but even if it isn't clear there is something called 'piercing the corporate veil' which allows the law to look through the corporate setup and identify the individual underneath. Hiding behind a different LTD or umbrella but the same person attending site still invokes the handcuff.

The whole point of the handcuff is to make sure the agent gets his fair share. Using artificial methods to get out of it will not work. The courts will always favour the party that can prove fair and reasonable loss regardless of the convoluted setups to try bypass it.

And never under estimate the lengths agents will go to to protect their revenue stream. They really can appear to seem clueless when dealing with us but when it comes to protecting their income they will be all over that. Their business is the bottom line so they will have that well covered.

Did you know that or consider that?

Plonker maybe.. Limited experience? Not so sure about that.

[CoolCat]

It's not and I'll bet there isnt. The clause is to protect the agents revenue stream. Why would they put clauses in like this that don't???

Ffs cos sometimes they ain't as bright as they think they are. One of the big agencies has just such a clause. You seem like a plonker just out to argue with limited experience.

[northernladuk]

Some clauses only restrict the Ltd or umbrella in this case, and not the individual, check if that's the case here and if so go back via another umbrella or Ltd

It's not and I'll bet there isnt. The clause is to protect the agents revenue stream. Why would they put clauses in like this that don't???

[CoolCat]

Some clauses only restrict the Ltd or umbrella in this case, and not the individual, check if that's the case here and if so go back via another umbrella or Ltd

[Lola C]

Agencies are not reasonable people. They are fraudsters that only care about the money. They will not give up thousands of pounds as a favour.



I'll bet that is because you don't read or understand your contract. I haven't worked for one that hasn't got it.

Here. FTFY.

[Lola C]

lol it not me i already work for my own ltd company

Ok thanks anyway im guessing option 1 the best bet if the client willing to take her ( sorry me) on

if not then talk to the agency to get out the clause or renew the contract , hopefully the agency reasonable people.

I worked for many agencies in the past and this is the first time hearing about this clause but it makes sense why no one been taken on direct kinda sucks

That is really strange. have you never had this in your contract before? It's pretty much standard - the lazy leeches want your money for as long as they can.

[LondonManc]

Is this friend of yours looking to go perm with the client co or carry on contracting with them?

If perm, there may be a standard contract-to-perm fee.

If contracting directly, then there may be a release fee declared. The simple fact is that the agency will lose out on revenue if your friend goes directly as a contractor, therefore they would win a court case, which they'll gladly enter into to recover their main love in life, money.

[northernladuk]

Lucky for me i'm not the one trying to get hired as I said before i'm asking for advice for a friend.

No but you not understanding your contract and handcuffs as well as the odd comment telling us that by being with an umbrella your friend isnt employed by the agent I think you've got a lot of work to properly understand what you do.

[benlittle]

This is a joke thread, right ?

Such awful grammar and txt speak! If I was the employer I would not even consider going direct, I would "of" fired him!

Lucky for me i'm not the one trying to get hired as I said before i'm asking for advice for a friend.