Reply to: Possible Boomed

[The Agents View]

as a rule of thumb, it's worth looking at PCG contracts to use....It makes life far simpler.

[Sockpuppet]

The reason I pay for B&C to do a review.

They not only do IR35 but also advise on stuff that they want to see taken out.

Result.

[rootsnall]

The contract is not enforcable with the contractor. It IS enforcable with the client. Ours are worded in that way.

That's interesting ! I've tried getting to the bottom of this before and was told by a senior bod in a legal/tax outfit ( off the record ) who had been dealing with IT contracting for years that the agencies would really struggle to get money out of the contractor no matter what it says in the contract regarding handcuff clauses. He went as far as saying he'd never known a contractor who has had to pay up . I would guess there are some who have lost their bottle and paid up without fighting it.

I used to live with a solicitor and she used to laugh at some of the contracts I was given. Her attitude was if it was full of unenforceable rubbish then you might aswell sign it rather than cause a scrap up front and possibly lose the job.

[Jubber]

Check out this one about "Pay rates" which is being forced into my latest renewal....

"The rates of pay specified in an assignment or where 14 days notice is given by us of a revised rate, the revised rate shall apply" (my emphasis.)

So they can cut rates at will without having to bother issuing a new contract. Apparently take it or leave it.

RBS.?

[Sockpuppet]

Check out this one about "Pay rates" which is being forced into my latest renewal....

"The rates of pay specified in an assignment or where 14 days notice is given by us of a revised rate, the revised rate shall apply" (my emphasis.)

So they can cut rates at will without having to bother issuing a new contract. Apparently take it or leave it.

Just get a clause in there saying that if any revised rate is informed you are able to give immediate notice.

They could have done this anyway. They'll just say that your contract is terminated and a new one issued. It effectivly just stops a lot of paperwork.

[The Agents View]

Actually, these clauses are not enforceable as its a restraint of trade. If you do a deal with a client to engage in a contract, the agency can't do anything about it, especially in some locales and industries.....

If the agents want to get their piece of the pie then they should be more proactive in 'selling' their clients (i..e us contractors) into good roles and then on-selling them. If a contract manages, through their good work, to be recognised and win more work, why should the agency benefit from that or why should the restrict the contractor in doing so. After all, that's why most contracts have a clause that allows the contractor to market their services as they see fit to win work, and if winning that work means its with a 3rd party or supplier they meet in doing their current contract, the courts won't restrict trade on that basis.

I wish agents would recognise their dodgy contracts have so many conflicting and uneforceable clauses in them that they are wasting their time in enforcing them. The good contractors are wise to this....

The contract is not enforcable with the contractor. It IS enforcable with the client. Ours are worded in that way. The fee for engaging one of our contractors directly is 12 weeks of full rate charge (typically £40,000) and for anyone who doubts that this is enforcable, I have seen a cheque for £80,000 come in this morning from a very large client who tried to do this. The downside for us is that this is very difficult to enforce and then maintain a good working relationship with the client in the future, so there is a degree of negotiation possible. Add this to the fact that within my business if we land a "found fee" (ie we've found a contractor somewhere they shouldnt be) the agent doesn't actually get any comission for it - so for me it's about having a stern word - unless that client has tried to stiff me before - then its hard ball time!!!

TAV

[Tensai]

I wish agents would recognise their dodgy contracts have so many conflicting and uneforceable clauses in them that they are wasting their time in enforcing them. The good contractors are wise to this....

Check out this one about "Pay rates" which is being forced into my latest renewal....

"The rates of pay specified in an assignment or where 14 days notice is given by us of a revised rate, the revised rate shall apply" (my emphasis.)

So they can cut rates at will without having to bother issuing a new contract. Apparently take it or leave it.

[Drewster]

Whats the difference between....

If its good enough for the house of commons its good enough for us.

Then again CUK probably achieves more than the HOC.

One is a group of self righteous, self serving, corrupt, loudmouthed, bigoted, opionionated........ Oh hang on.....

No we're not - the clauses last for a maximum of 6 months. There would be little point in wasting time asking for you if we had no claim to any kind of breach of contract.....

Actually, these clauses are not enforceable as its a restraint of trade. If you do a deal with a client to engage in a contract, the agency can't do anything about it, especially in some locales and industries.....

If the agents want to get their piece of the pie then they should be more proactive in 'selling' their clients (i..e us contractors) into good roles and then on-selling them. If a contract manages, through their good work, to be recognised and win more work, why should the agency benefit from that or why should the restrict the contractor in doing so. After all, that's why most contracts have a clause that allows the contractor to market their services as they see fit to win work, and if winning that work means its with a 3rd party or supplier they meet in doing their current contract, the courts won't restrict trade on that basis.

I wish agents would recognise their dodgy contracts have so many conflicting and uneforceable clauses in them that they are wasting their time in enforcing them. The good contractors are wise to this....

[The Agents View]

Yes you are stupid as that........... If the ex-client company telephone/receptionist can see my details as they were a year earlier, then they can see them after I left 1, 2, 3, 4, 5......... or even 12 months later. Hmmm, sometimes I really wonder about you guys.

We do actually have to make contact with you to confirm your presence on site before taking any action.

But do feel free to sling worthless abuse at me because of the job I do (and I suspect do better than anyone you've dealt with) because that is definately in the spirit of informed, intelligent debate.

TAV

[Sockpuppet]

But do feel free to sling worthless abuse at me ... because that is definately in the spirit of informed, intelligent debate.

If its good enough for the house of commons its good enough for us.

Then again CUK probably achieves more than the HOC.

[The Agents View]

Yes you are stupid as that........... If the ex-client company telephone/receptionist can see my details as they were a year earlier, then they can see them after I left 1, 2, 3, 4, 5......... or even 12 months later. Hmmm, sometimes I really wonder about you guys.

We do actually have to make contact with you to confirm your presence on site before taking any action.

But do feel free to sling worthless abuse at me because of the job I do (and I suspect do better than anyone you've dealt with) because that is definately in the spirit of informed, intelligent debate.

TAV

[Fred Bloggs]

No we're not - the clauses last for a maximum of 6 months. There would be little point in wasting time asking for you if we had no claim to any kind of breach of contract.....

Yes you are stupid as that........... If the ex-client company telephone/receptionist can see my details as they were a year earlier, then they can see them after I left 1, 2, 3, 4, 5......... or even 12 months later. Hmmm, sometimes I really wonder about you guys.

[Sockpuppet]

How would the agency ever know anyway?

Becuase logistics is one of the most inbred industries in the UK. The work I do there are maybe 40 people that do it amongst 20 companies. They'd find out.

Because we're not as stupid as you think??

Think of it as you doing a supplier selection. Would you expect to do all the ground work, speak to countless suppliers, whittle them down to a couple, and then choose one for the business, get them through the procurement process, and then have your client tell you they're not paying your invoice because they've got the supplier now??

The Company shall inform <agent> promptly if at any time during the Contract Period or for 6 months from its termination (for whatever reason) the Company and/or the Executive directly or indirectly accepts any contract, either for services or of service, to perform any work of a similar nature to the Services for the Client, except in any such case through <agent>.

Looks like I am boomed!

[The Agents View]

But you are that stupid then. I've been back to clients after a year or more away and the client still held my old extension number, email address etc in their site directory. So by doing that tactic to check on me at those sites you'd have a "had a result" against me, but I'd not have been there.

No we're not - the clauses last for a maximum of 6 months. There would be little point in wasting time asking for you if we had no claim to any kind of breach of contract.....