Reply to: Supervision, Direction, and Control

[Yonmons]

It may also have been included so that there can be no possibility of debt transfer under the new legislation on tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses

I think you mate have hit the nail on the head with that, my thoughts exactly.

[LondonManc]

It's mostly used as a way of keeping them involved when extensions happen.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm way off, but I reckon most agents are busy enough without doing random "year later" spot checks on contractors.

Correct on the first point.

Six months has proved to be what's generally enforceable and imo is reasonable. Each contract's a negotiation; they'd rather drop 12 months to 6 than lose the gig.

[jmo21]

Regarding this clause I always wonder what crystal ball the agency are using to realise that 6 or 9 months after you finished with them you are back at the same client and they want you to pony up some £££ as compo, they would have to be stalking you, in my experience once you've finished a contract it's sayonara and onto the next.

It's mostly used as a way of keeping them involved when extensions happen.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm way off, but I reckon most agents are busy enough without doing random "year later" spot checks on contractors.

[BlasterBates]

The handcuff clause is almost certainly not enforceable.

Generally handcuff clauses are a deterrent, and as long as you don't actually switch agencies mid-contract or perhaps at renewal with a fair offer, then really nothing to worry about.

They won't prevent you coming back a few weeks after your contract has expired on different project.

[SlipTheJab]

That handcuff is unfair and unreasonable so isn't worth the paper it's written on. I'd take no notice of that.

Regarding this clause I always wonder what crystal ball the agency are using to realise that 6 or 9 months after you finished with them you are back at the same client and they want you to pony up some £££ as compo, they would have to be stalking you, in my experience once you've finished a contract it's sayonara and onto the next.

[northernladuk]

That handcuff is unfair and unreasonable so isn't worth the paper it's written on. I'd take no notice of that.

[LondonManc]

Cheers guys. I assumed as much. I can't post the "agreement" contract here as I don't want to be naming and shaming anyone. But I guess if you are asked to sign something like this you'd know exactly which agency I'm talking about.

There were other things in the "agreement" which I found somewhat distasteful like lock-in clauses, i.e. Once I get a contract via them and that contract is finished, I can't get a new contract with that client via any other agency for a period of up to 12 months. I'd have to go back to this agency. May be if I stretch the definition of the word "reasonable", I could say it is reasonable to ask for something like this for a contract with a very small company that doesn't really hire more that one or two people a year. But this agency works (or claims to) with investment banks!

I guess I'll leave things there then.

Six months in normal and has been enforced in the past. Unless the client wholly dismisses the agency and does not deal with them, which means that the agency is no longer able to provide you with an interface to the client; as such, you are not denying the agency money.

[pscx]

Cheers guys. I assumed as much. I can't post the "agreement" contract here as I don't want to be naming and shaming anyone. But I guess if you are asked to sign something like this you'd know exactly which agency I'm talking about.

There were other things in the "agreement" which I found somewhat distasteful like lock-in clauses, i.e. Once I get a contract via them and that contract is finished, I can't get a new contract with that client via any other agency for a period of up to 12 months. I'd have to go back to this agency. May be if I stretch the definition of the word "reasonable", I could say it is reasonable to ask for something like this for a contract with a very small company that doesn't really hire more that one or two people a year. But this agency works (or claims to) with investment banks!

I guess I'll leave things there then.

[SueEllen]

Has anyone here, as a Ltd Company, ever signed a contract that specifically mentions that you will be under the supervision, direction, and control of the client?

NO

Funny thing is, in this instance I am talking about an AGENCY that wants me to sign that. Not even a company. In fact in a previous contract with a client I had there was a specific point saying I will NOT be under their SDC.

On a sidenote, has anyone here signed an "agreement for work finding services" or similar contract with an agency before they actually even secured you a contract? I've never had to do that in the past.

Only when I was a temp many moons ago. However agencies wouldn't take you on to their books unless they knew they could find work for you immediately. They use to make up excuses to get you to go away if there wasn't an immediate role for you.

In regards to work as a contractor - I ignore any agency that sends things like that as they clearly don't understand the market they are in.

[SlipTheJab]

There isn't a client at the end of it, just an agency agreement. I wouldn't waste good money asking QDOS to review a contract that doesn't refer to a specific client, I'd just refuse to sign.

The OP can ask us, it's as much as the contract is worth anyway...

+1, I reckon NLUK is moonlighting as a QDOS salesman these days

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

It may also have been included so that there can be no possibility of debt transfer under the new legislation on tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses

[northernladuk]

There isn't a client at the end of it, just an agency agreement. I wouldn't waste good money asking QDOS to review a contract that doesn't refer to a specific client, I'd just refuse to sign.

The OP can ask us, it's as much as the contract is worth anyway...

So you think he is going through one of these managed service things like Hyphen offered to Barclays? They didn't normally get you on board until there was actually a role to go for else you'd be straight on the bench.

If the OP has PI/PL through QDOS he would get a free basic review.

As usual it's too little info to give any kind of reasonable answer I guess.

[mudskipper]

Does the end client make cars?

[cojak]

You'd think the sensible thing would be to let QDOS have a look at this?

There isn't a client at the end of it, just an agency agreement. I wouldn't waste good money asking QDOS to review a contract that doesn't refer to a specific client, I'd just refuse to sign.

The OP can ask us, it's as much as the contract is worth anyway...

[Danglekt]

I'd ask them what employment rights they are offering in return