Reply to: Agency not reissuing a new contract

[SueEllen]

This!

Going to see an agent face to face is only viable if they are about an hour away from you, or if you find one of the directors lives locally to you so you can pop a letter through the letterbox.

[northernladuk]

This!

That!

[BrilloPad]

going to see the agency face to face

This!

[northernladuk]

I understand what you're saying, however, isn't the client insulated from any fallout of getting "caught" doing this? Surely the risk is all on the contractor and the limited company representing him. And so if the contractor is happy to take this risk, it should be ok?

Let's face it, in OP's exact situation with a non-responsive agent who doesn't even want to answer a phone call to earn some easy renewal money, they're unlikely to suddenly decide to make the effort to go all legal if they find out OP has contracted direct.

Only as far as the contractor suddenly disappears off site or the client get's caught up in a huge tulipstorm that the agent kicks off. They are insulated financially but they just want a body to get on with some work, not a whole world of arguments. Easier to get another body and avoid the unnecessary fall out. It is possible they might not care or know but you are in the realms of luck and chance. You might as well go with your current limited than a sham arrangement IMO.

You are probably right but I think we'd be surprised how vindictive some agents can be when they finally wake up.

[billybiro]

And because it's too easy to avoid contractual obligations there are ways to counter it. You can see through the business entity to the person behind it so exposing the sham situation if they want to. At best a company want want to get involved in anything like this. It's very grey and no decent legal department will want to know.

If it's that easy it's unlikely it's going to work.

I understand what you're saying, however, isn't the client insulated from any fallout of getting "caught" doing this? Surely the risk is all on the contractor and the limited company representing him. And so if the contractor is happy to take this risk, it should be ok?

Let's face it, in OP's exact situation with a non-responsive agent who doesn't even want to answer a phone call to earn some easy renewal money, they're unlikely to suddenly decide to make the effort to go all legal if they find out OP has contracted direct.

[northernladuk]

As an aside, why don't more people do this? Surely all handcuff clauses can be very easily circumvented in this way?

And because it's too easy to avoid contractual obligations there are ways to counter it. You can see through the business entity to the person behind it so exposing the sham situation if they want to. At best a company want want to get involved in anything like this. It's very grey and no decent legal department will want to know.

If it's that easy it's unlikely it's going to work.

[billybiro]

I told them I am willing to go direct through my other limited company and then not publicise I am still working there.

(Emphasis mine).

Wait. You have more than one limited company? If so, the answer is simple. You contract directly with the client through the limited company that has not been previously contracting with the agency. Any handcuff clause can only possibly apply to the legal entity on the contract (i.e. your ltd) and not you personally, so you're surely free of any such clause if you using a different company.

As an aside, why don't more people do this? Surely all handcuff clauses can be very easily circumvented in this way?

[doconline]

In your situation I would speak to end client and find out if they are happy for you to go direct if no response from the agency. I would then send a guaranteed 24hr registered letter to the agent today, so it gets there tomorrow , giving them 48 hours (end of business Thursday) to get in touch with you and the client to get the contracts sorted out, stating otherwise you will have no choice but to go direct as they are compromising both your business and the clients business. That gives you Friday to sort the contract out with the end client and be back working for client on Monday. I think 48 hours is more than reasonable for them to get in touch with both parties. You could also CC the client with the letter so everyone has a copy, just in case the agency do decide to play silly buggers in the future and sue for breach of contract / loss of earnings, and everyone will be aware of what has happened with a hard copy of the letter.

[SueEllen]

Maybe original agent sorted a bit of a crap deal with the original contract and now its not worth their while???

But as others have said, ask client to pick their agency and get them to call you....

What? It costs too much to change the dates and send out a contract?

[psychocandy]

Maybe original agent sorted a bit of a crap deal with the original contract and now its not worth their while???

But as others have said, ask client to pick their agency and get them to call you....

[WTFH]

To be honest I don't as in my experience, that can cause a lot more issues than its worth.

Fair point.


Have you searched on here to see if the agent gets any mentions?

[SueEllen]

Client doesn't have the appetite to take the risk. I told them I am willing to go direct through my other limited company and then not publicise I am still working there. As I am the only contract through that agency I don't see it as a great risk and personally would take it if I was them. Unfortunately from a legal perspective, the agency would win if they found out anytime in the next 12 months and it would cost client.

I can guarantee 100% the client will never use this agency again.

Not necessarily.

If you both back each other up by providing the other copies of documents proving you both attempted to contact the agency unsuccessfully many times by many methods to sort the contracts out but the agency refused to engage with either of you, I'm sure a solicitor could easily argue the handcuffs don't apply. The agency is clearly not interested in protecting it's commercial interests and is placing an unreasonable restraint of trade on the other two parties by then later trying to evoke the handcuffs.

The agency doesn't sound that big from the sounds of it so won't want to hire a solicitor either. They could try it on months later and a simple letter from a solicitor telling them to feck off explaining why should be enough.

[P3rcyp]

Blimey. What a horrible situation that is.

Only thing I can think of now is to suggest to the client that they drop the duff agency. If they do that then the handcuff is void. The agent won't be getting any more work from them so they can't prove any loss. Just trying to stopping you just cause they won't to be arsey about it won't stand up.
Problem is it will cause a tulip storm and the client is going to have to argue the legals. They'll win but it's whether they have the appetite to bother just for one contractor.

Client doesn't have the appetite to take the risk. I told them I am willing to go direct through my other limited company and then not publicise I am still working there. As I am the only contract through that agency I don't see it as a great risk and personally would take it if I was them. Unfortunately from a legal perspective, the agency would win if they found out anytime in the next 12 months and it would cost client.

I can guarantee 100% the client will never use this agency again.

It will probably all work itself out in the end but it makes me nervous and I hate the thought of possibly working for free. Only done it so far as I know the client wants to keep me but if nothing comes about next week then I can kiss goodbye to that wad of dosh.

[northernladuk]

Blimey. What a horrible situation that is.

Only thing I can think of now is to suggest to the client that they drop the duff agency. If they do that then the handcuff is void. The agent won't be getting any more work from them so they can't prove any loss. Just trying to stopping you just cause they won't to be arsey about it won't stand up.
Problem is it will cause a tulip storm and the client is going to have to argue the legals. They'll win but it's whether they have the appetite to bother just for one contractor.

[P3rcyp]

How can the cliebt get another contractor to replace you? That would indicate they will need to speak to the agency and action it. Bearing in mind they won't action you what hope do they have?

No chance you can speak to the agency and throw a wobbler so you can speak to someone in charge?

The client uses more than one agency. I happen to be the only person from the agency I am with/not with depending on how you look at it.

It has been discussed about me contracting with the other agency or direct but the client is nervous about that from a legal perspective and they are not prepared to pay the agency circa 25 or 30% of the annual contract cost to buy me out.

I have already done the wobbler albeit in a calmer manner and was told I will receive a call back. You can guess how that ended..........