Reply to: With agency now - looking to go direct

[zonkkk]

That was the hidden message in my original post on this thread!

Next time, just say it!

[malvolio]

Good point, I was actually thinking about this, the client didn't mention anything when I told them about my handcuff clause. I'll just wait to see what they come back with.

That was the hidden message in my original post on this thread!

[zonkkk]

I suspect YOU can get out of this restraint relatively easily.

However, your client may have a transfer fee specified on their side and that might be commercially unviable to go direct for them.

Good point, I was actually thinking about this, the client didn't mention anything when I told them about my handcuff clause. I'll just wait to see what they come back with.

[Andy Hallett]

I suspect YOU can get out of this restraint relatively easily.

However, your client may have a transfer fee specified on their side and that might be commercially unviable to go direct for them.

[zonkkk]

Ah okay. Fixed cost on what payment schedule?

Deliverable/Milestone based. Milestones every 2 - 6 weeks depending on deliverable.

[Lance]

My contract states that they want my LTD to pay. I was wondering what ways are there around it. Client is on my side.

What's a handshake clause?

Opted out (or no contract)...

close the LTD and go direct with a new one.


EDIT: just seen last update. Good luck. The agency will likely want the client to pony up something.

[LondonManc]

Nothing to do with avoiding IR35. Current contract assessed outside IR35 by the client. Next contract outside as well but they want to go fixed cost, so the agency is somewhat redundant (all risk is on my LTD).

Ah okay. Fixed cost on what payment schedule?

[malvolio]

The project/technical manager has asked HR / Legal to deal with the agency and see what they can do.

Fair enough. Best of luck!

[zonkkk]

Which bit of the client though? Your "line manager", an executive, Human Remains, the legal team? There are sound business reasons for them using an agency as well as binding contracts that might get in the way.

Obviously you know far more about the reality than I do, but just be aware it is not necessarily as easy as it looks. And don't forget you are also picking up additional financial risk without the agency in the middle.

The project/technical manager has asked HR / Legal to deal with the agency and see what they can do.

[zonkkk]

Why do you want to go direct? If you think it's to avoid IR35, think again; your limited company becomes the intermediary so you'd still be at whim of the determination of the end client as to your status.

Nothing to do with avoiding IR35. Current contract assessed outside IR35 by the client. Next contract outside as well but they want to go fixed cost, so the agency is somewhat redundant (all risk is on my LTD).

[eek]

Why do you want to go direct? If you think it's to avoid IR35, think again; your limited company becomes the intermediary so you'd still be at whim of the determination of the end client as to your status.

+1 - half a thread on the issue can be seen https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...n-account.html until we switched to an R&D tax credit discussion.

[LondonManc]

Why do you want to go direct? If you think it's to avoid IR35, think again; your limited company becomes the intermediary so you'd still be at whim of the determination of the end client as to your status.

[malvolio]

Yes, the client said they'll deal with the agency.

Which bit of the client though? Your "line manager", an executive, Human Remains, the legal team? There are sound business reasons for them using an agency as well as binding contracts that might get in the way.

Obviously you know far more about the reality than I do, but just be aware it is not necessarily as easy as it looks. And don't forget you are also picking up additional financial risk without the agency in the middle.

[zonkkk]

No, it doesn't.

Thanks, do you have any other useful insights into my contract?

[perplexed]

It does say the Company or the Representative, so it kind of does 'name' me...

No, it doesn't.