Reply to: Possibility of changing Agent

Re: So why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Actually, perhaps you should start the discussion rather than wait for the agency to wake up. Go to them and tell them the client wants you to stay with them but you aren't happy with the deal and will only renew subject to you getting a 500% rate rise and only working alternate Fridays (or whatever sounds reasonable ).

In your circumstances there's no benefit in letting them lead the discussion, especially if the client is behind you. It's you generating the repeat business, after all, so you should be driving things forward.

renewal period

A safe guideline is the notice period contained within your existing contract. i.e. if your notice period is 1 month you should expect to be contacted prior to the start of the final month of your contract.

Re: So why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Thanks everyone for all your replies. I have spoken with the client and they were reasonably sympathic. However it looks like I need to get my contract checked out by a Lawyer to see if it would hold up if I did get the opportunity to change agencies.

One thing I am planning on doing is using the Clients desire to renew me as leverage against my Agency on renegotiating my conditions.

One further question I have is, when a contract comes up for renewal, at what stage should your Agency contact you with regard to your renewal conditions?

Re: So why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Already did thank you. The resulting letter from my company solicitor to the Agency resulted in the removal of several onerous clauses they attempted to foist on me at renewal AND a nice reduction in their margin. They haven't pissed me about once since then either for some reason.

Still, you know best and he obviously made up the citations. I must have been lucky because the agency's solicitors are so crap they agreed with mine when they should have fought me every step of the way.

restraint of trade

The way round all this for an agency is to include a clause that says if the contractor goes direct he is free to do so as long as he pays the agency its loss of profits.

The mistake agencies make is in thinking that they can issue an injunction preventing a contractor from working.

In the event that there is a dispute and the agency is determined enough to pursue a claim through lawyers then a settlement is usually agreed. That is why few (if any) disputes actually go to court.

Re: Everybody else

I seem to think the same as everybody other than you in this thread

Don't claim to speak for others.

So why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Are you going through an agency at the moment? Well ditch the contract, go direct & like I said before - let me know how you get on (if I don't read about it first).

Re: Everybody else

Well
I seem to think the same as everybody other than you in this thread.
I know I think the same as my company solicitor and the Law Lords.
So who is it exactly is the everybody that knows better???

Re: RE: Prison Notepaper

No, I just skipped a step. When your erstwhile agency drags you before the courts to claim for breach of contract & you refuse to pay the damages as instructed (because you know better than everybody else), you'll doubtless be carted off to the local clink to think about it all.

RE: Prison Notepaper

Well Freddie (or should we say agent Freddie) you have now revealed your total and utter lack of understanding not only of contract law but indeed the difference between contract law and criminal law.

Re: You simply cannot decide to ditch your contract

Well good luck with that. Let me know how you get on, though please not that all correspondance on her majesties prison headed notepaper will be disqualified.

Re: You simply cannot decide to ditch your contract

Yes you can.
Your company cannot, but "Force Majeure" applies here because YOU can, any clause that personally limits you personally almost certainly makes the entire contract null and void as it is an illegal contract.

It is very un-professional BUT it IS legal and if you really don't know this then you are failing in your legal responsibilities as a Director.

FWIW the first law to make this kind of contract clause illegal throughout the British Empire came into force in 1833.

And exactly how are your human rights affected by stealing from your agency?

I suppose you said the same thing about MacDonalds.

It is only a matter of time before the types of contracts used by agencies re IT workers is tested in court by the Human Rights Legislation.

You simply cannot decide to ditch your contract and decide to go direct - even if you do set up a new Ltd. company to hide behind.

Again, yet to be tested in the courts.

And exactly how are your human rights affected by stealing from your agency?

You simply cannot decide to ditch your contract and decide to go direct - even if you do set up a new Ltd. company to hide behind.

Human Rights Act
Restraint of Trade

You need to speak with a lawyer, but as someone who has contracted for over 20 years, let me say that to my knowledge no agency has ever succesfully sued a contractor for going direct after the contract has expired.

Contract law is very specific about this, a contract is only valid for the duration of the contract. If the agency wishes to impose 'handcuffs', you have to sign another contract AFTER the completion of the current contract and for the new contract to be valid, a 'consideration' has to be paid - in other words they have to pay you to NOT work at the client.

Where there can be difficulties is with the client, their contracts are broader, especially if the agency has multiple contractors on site. If the client is willing to take you on direct, then the risk is theirs, not yours.

Oh! and as to your comment of why agencies can do this, it's because of freelancers like yourself who have little or no understanding of contract law, yet sign contracts without taking any legal advice or understanding what you are signing and whether it's legal or not.