Sole rights for agency introduction

[WTFH]

...which was never followed up nor came to anything...

Why didn't you follow it up? When you apply for a role, or get interviewed, you should make the effort to follow up on the applications and interviews. You're more likely to get a role if you do.

It was 6 months since first applying for a different role.

Your best bet is to get Agency B (the one that you are currently working for) on the case, as they have something to lose from the Client Co sacking you.

If someone can change the ClientCo's mind, spooked by an agent, it's another agent.

if you have already built a relationship with the hiring manager you can point him the fact that the original "right to represent" e-mail is 6 months old and no longer valid, but that's a long shot.

I agree with sal - get agent B to deal with it. As has been said before, your issue is not with the end client and you should not be looking at suing them. Your issue is with agent A. Agent B will probably want to fight this one, so get the two agents to sort it out.

...and the next time, you need to let an agent know that they are representing you only for a specific role, and that they have a specific timeframe to do the representation.

[sal]

Your best bet is to get Agency B (the one that you are currently working for) on the case, as they have something to lose from the Client Co sacking you.

If someone can change the ClientCo's mind, spooked by an agent, it's another agent.

if you have already built a relationship with the hiring manager you can point him the fact that the original "right to represent" e-mail is 6 months old and no longer valid, but that's a long shot.

[App23]

Sorry for the very long delay in replying I had no idea anyone had replied.
It was 6 months since first applying for a different role.

[WTFH]

Suing a client isn’t the way forward as a business. Some bad advice from a few about that.
If you ever respond to my earlier question, the next suggestion I would make is to point agent 1 at agent 2 and let them sort it out. It’s not the client’s fault that two agents put you forward. It’s either you or the agents that need to resolve this.

[northernladuk]

Maybe not, but the mere threat of legal action can make certain types of individuals or organisations suddenly change their minds.

Never underestimate the power a letter on a solicitor's letterhead can have in such situations.

Yes.. but no.. but...

Legal action can be useful but as soon as you mention 'Sue' anyone that knows anything about the process will know you have no idea so will just laugh you off. A solicitors letter starting the engagement process yes, very scary.. 'I'm gonna sue you'.. not so scary and mildly amusing.

I read in to it he would take action retrospectively so in this case a solicitors letter wouldn't help. The moment has passed. If it hasn't and any contractor drops a solicitors letter on any party in this situation everyone would want nothing to do with him so almost counter productive.

So yes, it can be powerful but not in this situation IMO, whether retrospective action or attempting to strong arm while the situation is on going.

[billybiro]

Not a chance.

Maybe not, but the mere threat of legal action can make certain types of individuals or organisations suddenly change their minds.

Never underestimate the power a letter on a solicitor's letterhead can have in such situations.

[SueEllen]

How long between you authorising agent A to submit your cv and the you authorising agent B to submit it?

Interestingly this hasn't been answered. I can only guess it was less than a month or six months, as it is Clientco who have the contract with the agency which prevents them doing this.

[washed up contractor]

Advice required please - a role has been taken with an agency as a contractor from a cv that was submitted a few months after a cv was submitted to the same company a few months prior which was never followed up nor came to anything. The first agency is claiming they should be entitled to something as the contract they have with the company that if they are taken by another agency they should be entitled to pay some daily fee to cover their breach of contract.
The company in question is refusing to pay to keep their side of the bargain and would prefer to sack the contractor than pay out. Surely a company can't do this. Would the contractor in question be able to sue them for anything if they were sacked by a mistake and breach of contract on their part as this is the not the contractors fault ?

My advice has always been the same. No matter when you agree to an agent representing you for a role and wanting 'exclusivity,' always make it very clear you are only giving them it for that particular role (either by referring to and quoting the job ref they provide or, by naming the specific role) for a specific time ie maximum 72 hours from the date \ time of your email.

As you are finding out, the client would rather bin the contractor than get involved.

[northernladuk]

You could as a business sue the end client for loss of future profits if you can demonstrate that Agency A did not contact you past a certain point as to be solely represented by them and the end client had been aware of you had previously applied to them before you went in with Agency B.

Not a chance.

[BlackCountryContractor]

Advice required please - a role has been taken with an agency as a contractor from a cv that was submitted a few months after a cv was submitted to the same company a few months prior which was never followed up nor came to anything. The first agency is claiming they should be entitled to something as the contract they have with the company that if they are taken by another agency they should be entitled to pay some daily fee to cover their breach of contract.
The company in question is refusing to pay to keep their side of the bargain and would prefer to sack the contractor than pay out. Surely a company can't do this. Would the contractor in question be able to sue them for anything if they were sacked by a mistake and breach of contract on their part as this is the not the contractors fault ?

It looks like a sad story of incompetence at clientco;

The crux of the matter here is if you agreed by email/handwriting to be solely represented by Agency A if not and only just a conversation by phone then it is not legally binding (As no proof can be put forward and it is a simple case of your word vs theirs)

It looks like clientco got spooked and decided to avoid any legal issues by simply washing their hands of the matter, though it does bring a question how stupid clientco must be as pimps could in theory do hit and run phone calls and not say anything to contractors then keep pumping the end client with their CVs while in the meantime contractors would have no clue what was going on until they applied to clientco by a different agency.

If you didn't agree to be solely represented by Agency A

You could as a business sue the end client for loss of future profits if you can demonstrate that Agency A did not contact you past a certain point as to be solely represented by them and the end client had been aware of you had previously applied to them before you went in with Agency B.

[WTFH]

How long between you authorising agent A to submit your cv and the you authorising agent B to submit it?

[NotAllThere]

A company can sack a contractor at any time for pretty much any reason.

The client could call the agency's bluff and the agency would back down - they almost certainly haven't really got a leg to stand on - but if the client decides it's just easier to get rid of the contractor - then there is no comeback.

[App23]

Advice required please - a role has been taken with an agency as a contractor from a cv that was submitted a few months after a cv was submitted to the same company a few months prior which was never followed up nor came to anything. The first agency is claiming they should be entitled to something as the contract they have with the company that if they are taken by another agency they should be entitled to pay some daily fee to cover their breach of contract.
The company in question is refusing to pay to keep their side of the bargain and would prefer to sack the contractor than pay out. Surely a company can't do this. Would the contractor in question be able to sue them for anything if they were sacked by a mistake and breach of contract on their part as this is the not the contractors fault ?