Reply to: When the client is not the client

[SimonMac]

Told You So

Ah well, the joy's of contracting, bit pissed off as I turned down other offers for this one, but again the old adage is until your bum's on a seat nothing is certain

[eek]

Hmmmm, just seen the role has been re-advertised by the agent, guess I have pissed him off

Told You So

[northernladuk]

Hmmmm, just seen the role has been re-advertised by the agent, guess I have pissed him off

Or you've got a better beard.

[SimonMac]

Hmmmm, just seen the role has been re-advertised by the agent, guess I have pissed him off

[MrMarkyMark]

Don't forget the rule is introduction or supply and the agencies are taking that line so in their eyes you can still be asked to opt out. I was reading a resource page on the Lorien site that clearly explained that you go for interview, get the gig and then can opt out. I can't find it to save my life now sadly but anyway, there is no case law and the wording is wooly enough for the agents to think they have a case.

Of course, you can voluntarily opt out at any time.

Unsure whether I would take Lorien as a golden source .
Agree totally it is all pretty wooly and nothing is proven in case law.

[northernladuk]

From what I understand, you are inside the agency regs. You have been introduced, interviewed, offered. The only thing you haven't done is have a quickie with the CEO. Asking you to opt out now should be irrelevant.

Don't forget the rule is introduction or supply and the agencies are taking that line so in their eyes you can still be asked to opt out. I was reading a resource page on the Lorien site that clearly explained that you go for interview, get the gig and then can opt out. I can't find it to save my life now sadly but anyway, there is no case law and the wording is wooly enough for the agents to think they have a case.

[SimonMac]

Nope I think now they will just bin you off... All you can do is wait and see....

See my post earlier!

[MrMarkyMark]

From what I understand, you are inside the agency regs. You have been introduced, interviewed, offered. The only thing you haven't done is have a quickie with the CEO. Asking you to opt out now should be irrelevant.

Hes just a bit shy

Agree on your other points, however.

[GB9]

From what I understand, you are inside the agency regs. You have been introduced, interviewed, offered. The only thing you haven't done is have a quickie with the CEO. Asking you to opt out now should be irrelevant.

[eek]

I know I wasn't, just wanted to put it in an email that can be referred to later #JustInCase

Nope I think now they will just bin you off... All you can do is wait and see....

[SimonMac]

You probably were not opted out anyway - I've never seen an agency do it correctly....

I know I wasn't, just wanted to put it in an email that can be referred to later #JustInCase

[eek]

If the end client was a multi billion pound constituent of the FTSE 100 I would say there is no problem too great that couldn't be sorted out, but seeing as its a 18 month old "consultancy" with more liabilities than assets I think I am right to be a little more cautious.

Just send an email back saying



If it put's their hackles up I know it could be problematic and will continue the other irons in the fire still, if they brush it off as no worries I am happy to continue

You probably were not opted out anyway - I've never seen an agency do it correctly....

[SimonMac]

My guess is that a solicitor's letter stating that the clause was not been correctly implemented (prove otherwise) results in most agencies paying up....

I also suspect that not many people actually have problems that end up with the client not paying and those that do end up in that position are so bad that they don't bother chasing...

If the end client was a multi billion pound constituent of the FTSE 100 I would say there is no problem too great that couldn't be sorted out, but seeing as its a 18 month old "consultancy" with more liabilities than assets I think I am right to be a little more cautious.

Just send an email back saying

Obviously this adds a small extra degree of risk given the relatively young age of the company, this means I will not be opting out of the The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003

If it put's their hackles up I know it could be problematic and will continue the other irons in the fire still, if they brush it off as no worries I am happy to continue

[northernladuk]

I'd agree with both of those.

[eek]

Erm, I'll probably get this wrong and I should have searched but I thought if you had the correct opt status then the clause is invalid, like the handcuff clause for example. I'd have to check that though.

EDIT : OK I folded and did a search.



EDIT 2 : Agents are so bad at understanding the opt in/out situation it isn't a golden bullet. You are going to be in for a fight if they don't want to pay. I don't believe there is any case law over this yet. Hopefully that's because they are held bang to rights and it never goes that far. Leaving the term in and relying on your opt in status isn't ideal.

My guess is that a solicitor's letter stating that the clause was not been correctly implemented (prove otherwise) results in most agencies paying up....

I also suspect that not many people actually have problems that end up with the client not paying and those that do end up in that position are so bad that they don't bother chasing...