Reply to: My client asked me to switch recruitment agency, can I do that?

[GhostofTarbera]

Their may be good people there who intend to pay you problem is once you leave you are last on the list to get paid. You may still get paid but they will pay companies who they have an active relationship with first.

Try paying bills with intent or promises


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[jayn200]

Agency A was paying me always on time until the last payment. I emailed them and they said that they are in financial problems due to client not paying them but that they still intend to pay.

Their may be good people there who intend to pay you problem is once you leave you are last on the list to get paid. You may still get paid but they will pay companies who they have an active relationship with first.

[commonsense]

Could it be Agency A never got paid in the first place?

Now you've jumped ship you can kiss any payment from A goodbye. They'll withhold it in lieu of losses due to breach.

Isn't A absolutely frothing and threatening to sue you?

Agency A was paying me always on time until the last payment. I emailed them and they said that they are in financial problems due to client not paying them but that they still intend to pay.

[northernladuk]

Another update. Today I got paid by the new Agency B but Agency A still hasn't paid yet.

Could it be that the client has different payment terms with Agency B - e.g. pay them in 2-3 months so he's relying on that and once the terms come into force, he won't be able to pay Agency B either?

Could it be Agency A never got paid in the first place?

Now you've jumped ship you can kiss any payment from A goodbye. They'll withhold it in lieu of losses due to breach.

Isn't A absolutely frothing and threatening to sue you?

[eek]

Another update. Today I got paid by the new Agency B but Agency A still hasn't paid yet.

Could it be that the client has different payment terms with Agency B - e.g. pay them in 2-3 months so he's relying on that and once the terms come into force, he won't be able to pay Agency B either?

Quite possibly - Agency B have clearly not done due diligence.

[commonsense]

UPDATE 2

Another update. Today I got paid by the new Agency B but Agency A still hasn't paid yet.

Could it be that the client has different payment terms with Agency B - e.g. pay them in 2-3 months so he's relying on that and once the terms come into force, he won't be able to pay Agency B either?

[SueEllen]

Thank you for all your suggestions and tips.

I have an update - looks like Agency A is not going to pay me. I've asked client about it and he said that Agency is playing games and doesn't want me to work directly with the client or via any other agency. So client is not paying them unless they agree to let me work for him directly - or currently via Agency B.

Question is, I'm on monthly self billing agreement with Agency A. Normally they pay 1 week after submitting timesheet. How long should I wait before trying to enforce them to pay me? I couldn't find anything in the contract which would state when do they have to pay me.

Interestingly, client suggested to pay me directly and not pay the Agency A. How would this work in reality?

It wouldn't.

The client needs to pay the agency, who then pay you. Your contact is with the agency not the client.

Then if the client wanted you to go direct they should have told the agency they no longer needed you and told you to keep your mouth shut if you wanted more work with them. (I know people who have got away with this because they are the only contractor on-site and they work in multiple locations, so the agent can just turn up and find them with ease.)

The way the client are acting means if you went direct they would screw you over payments, plus you would have the "joy" of being taken to Court by the agency.

Start looking for new work asap.

[Lance]

Thank you for all your suggestions and tips.

I have an update - looks like Agency A is not going to pay me. I've asked client about it and he said that Agency is playing games and doesn't want me to work directly with the client or via any other agency. So client is not paying them unless they agree to let me work for him directly - or currently via Agency B.

Question is, I'm on monthly self billing agreement with Agency A. Normally they pay 1 week after submitting timesheet. How long should I wait before trying to enforce them to pay me? I couldn't find anything in the contract which would state when do they have to pay me.

Interestingly, client suggested to pay me directly and not pay the Agency A. How would this work in reality?

well... This gets more interesting.

If you go direct, and get paid money by the client that should have been through the agency, then your handcuff clauses suddenly become enforceable.
For a start the client will still owe Agency A no matter how much it might annoy them.
And the agency could well end up armed with sufficient evidence that you, by your actions, have deprived them of monies owed. At the same time they can pursue the client. They could end up getting double, and you get screwed in court.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't work direct for this client. They sound like a right dodgy crew.

[LondonManc]

Thank you for all your suggestions and tips.

I have an update - looks like Agency A is not going to pay me. I've asked client about it and he said that Agency is playing games and doesn't want me to work directly with the client or via any other agency. So client is not paying them unless they agree to let me work for him directly - or currently via Agency B.

Question is, I'm on monthly self billing agreement with Agency A. Normally they pay 1 week after submitting timesheet. How long should I wait before trying to enforce them to pay me? I couldn't find anything in the contract which would state when do they have to pay me.

Interestingly, client suggested to pay me directly and not pay the Agency A. How would this work in reality?

So client has not paid Agency A for, say, your last four weeks but are now offering to pay you for them?

[commonsense]

Thank you for all your suggestions and tips.

I have an update - looks like Agency A is not going to pay me. I've asked client about it and he said that Agency is playing games and doesn't want me to work directly with the client or via any other agency. So client is not paying them unless they agree to let me work for him directly - or currently via Agency B.

Question is, I'm on monthly self billing agreement with Agency A. Normally they pay 1 week after submitting timesheet. How long should I wait before trying to enforce them to pay me? I couldn't find anything in the contract which would state when do they have to pay me.

Interestingly, client suggested to pay me directly and not pay the Agency A. How would this work in reality?

[LondonManc]

Oh Lord!

Ok, you tell me. Where is the risk, and then define it - from the contractor's point of view.

There is risk in everything but I believe in my bullets, I had identified and qualified them vis a vis the current market and climate.

If Risk is a problem for you, then how have you dealt with the last 20 years of IR35, for the love all things holy.

There's a time for getting stuck in and having a look, and maybe a time for endless procrastination. I believe this might be a time for the former...

If you read the thread, you'll realise that several posters have already suggested the OP discuss the situation with the hiring manager, to get the client's side of events (hint, the agent doesn't always speak the truth). The client may pinocchio a bit too, but at least they'll have both sides. A quick credit check and an ear to the ground on the client's intranet could show up that the client is running short on cash.

Personally I'd declare myself on the market and get looking. It's a regrettable situation but while they're currently under contract via Agency A, there's an issue with that relationship to Client. Also, I'd talk to Agency A and say, well, get me out of here then. If we're both getting no more cash out of the Client, why bother? Gauge their reaction.

[simes]

So basically you are suggesting that going to agency 2 is risk free and ignoring the fact that chances are the only reason is

Oh Lord!

Ok, you tell me. Where is the risk, and then define it - from the contractor's point of view.

There is risk in everything but I believe in my bullets, I had identified and qualified them vis a vis the current market and climate.

If Risk is a problem for you, then how have you dealt with the last 20 years of IR35, for the love all things holy.

There's a time for getting stuck in and having a look, and maybe a time for endless procrastination. I believe this might be a time for the former...

[eek]

Have I?

Which agency's behaviour are you randomly alluding to?

In respect to your question of Why, is not the more important question then likely to be Why is the Client as opposed to the Agency behaving like this?

Either way, from the contractor's point of view, these are my thoughts which may offer some clues to my suggestion.

1. The client and Agency 1 may be having an argument about something unrelated to anything to do with his contract?
2. If so, the contractor has just been caught up in it. Which admittedly is tough.
3. If the client is suggesting moving to another agency to continue working and 'maybe' start getting paid, then, Why not?
4. My thinking for this is, he is likely working from home, which means his daily outlay is nothing, which means he can start looking for other things, which because of the market is likely to take A-Long-Time, which means he can do both at the same time with little or no financial loss to him.
5. If the OP does all this, he can suggest invoicing weekly to the agency 2, and at the first sign that they will not pay him, then he knows something afoot. Cue the dangerous music, da da dahhh.
6. At which point, he downs tools and all he does with his day is, Look for another contract.

So, while I am sure you are a shining light in your own bathroom, I am not sure I have missed anything that we are ever likely to know the absolute truth about. Which may mean my initial suggestion might be a way forward...

So basically you are suggesting that going to agency 2 is risk free and ignoring the fact that chances are the only reason is

the client gets another week or two for free though

[simes]

Buy why do you think the agency is behaving like this. You've missed a key point as usual.

Have I?

Which agency's behaviour are you randomly alluding to?

In respect to your question of Why, is not the more important question then likely to be Why is the Client as opposed to the Agency behaving like this?

Either way, from the contractor's point of view, these are my thoughts which may offer some clues to my suggestion.

1. The client and Agency 1 may be having an argument about something unrelated to anything to do with his contract?
2. If so, the contractor has just been caught up in it. Which admittedly is tough.
3. If the client is suggesting moving to another agency to continue working and 'maybe' start getting paid, then, Why not?
4. My thinking for this is, he is likely working from home, which means his daily outlay is nothing, which means he can start looking for other things, which because of the market is likely to take A-Long-Time, which means he can do both at the same time with little or no financial loss to him.
5. If the OP does all this, he can suggest invoicing weekly to the agency 2, and at the first sign that they will not pay him, then he knows something afoot. Cue the dangerous music, da da dahhh.
6. At which point, he downs tools and all he does with his day is, Look for another contract.

So, while I am sure you are a shining light in your own bathroom, I am not sure I have missed anything that we are ever likely to know the absolute truth about. Which may mean my initial suggestion might be a way forward...

[northernladuk]

I think you will find that a contractor is not bound to complete a contract, and adhere to notice periods and handcuff clauses when the agency has no work. That would imply an agency can simply get contractors sign them up, tell them there's no work and put them out of the market for 3-6 months.

And it's that is an unreasonable situation in which binning the contract off would be the correct thing to do. There is no valid business reason for it. This is not one of those situations. There is a genuine business issue that once resolved will carry on as normal. If the contract does breach and the agency gets paid so work starts the agency can quite easily sue for losses.

As I said earlier, if ever subcontractor breaches at the first sniff of a non payment it would be complete anarchy out there.

What can be done can change in different situations but no one action is valid across the board. What can be done when the agent is taking the piss is totally different to a valid business situation.