• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?"

Collapse

  • JamesC34
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    Nope, the issue is that when push has come to shove the agency will back down - and the amounts being fought over really aren't that significant at the end of the day, it's always max a £x,000 when even starting the court case is going to cost £x0,000 and end up being £x00,000.

    It's one reason why the SDS chain in an outside IR35 determination is going to be so important - as the amounts involved start to get significant very, very quickly.
    Sorry you have lost me.
    Who will the agency back down from?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by JamesC34 View Post
    As a bit of an aside, do I detect a distinct change in tone in this thread over the years?

    Early bullishness seemed to have evolved into a resigned defeatism that we have no option but to accept our lot, however unjust it may be. It's very 2021. There were no change in regulations in the last 10-15 years as far as I am aware.

    I suppose the obvious answer will be why don't you be the one to challenge it in the courts!? Therein lies the difficulty - we need an very well resourced, very determined and idealistic individual. It doesn't look like government regulations resolve anything, at least not in this case.
    Nope, the issue is that when push has come to shove the agency will back down - and the amounts being fought over really aren't that significant at the end of the day, it's always max a £x,000 when even starting the court case is going to cost £x0,000 and end up being £x00,000.

    It's one reason why the SDS chain in an outside IR35 determination is going to be so important - as the amounts involved start to get significant very, very quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesC34
    replied
    As a bit of an aside, do I detect a distinct change in tone in this thread over the years?

    Early bullishness seemed to have evolved into a resigned defeatism that we have no option but to accept our lot, however unjust it may be. It's very 2021. There were no change in regulations in the last 10-15 years as far as I am aware.

    I suppose the obvious answer will be why don't you be the one to challenge it in the courts!? Therein lies the difficulty - we need an very well resourced, very determined and idealistic individual. It doesn't look like government regulations resolve anything, at least not in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesC34
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    Just to add one rather important point...

    I was one who pressured PCG (as was, now IPSE) into challenging the DTi (as was, now BERR and SIUS... ) over agencies making an opt out a condition of representing you to a client. Their rather less than helpful answer was that while making the opt out a condition is illegal, businesses are free to choose who they want to do business with.

    Kafka would be so proud.

    But until someone gets this into court, it's a dead issue. The reality is let the agency pretend that they have properly opted you out. In the real world it will make damn all difference for anything but a fairly unlikely set of circumstances.
    Yes agreed. We were just discussing the same thing - the situation is comically contradictory and ridiculous. Kafkaesque is a good. description.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Just to add one rather important point...

    I was one who pressured PCG (as was, now IPSE) into challenging the DTi (as was, now BERR and SIUS... ) over agencies making an opt out a condition of representing you to a client. Their rather less than helpful answer was that while making the opt out a condition is illegal, businesses are free to choose who they want to do business with.

    Kafka would be so proud.

    But until someone gets this into court, it's a dead issue. The reality is let the agency pretend that they have properly opted you out. In the real world it will make damn all difference for anything but a fairly unlikely set of circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by JamesC34 View Post

    OK. Well, although I still have a slight bitter feeling about it, you have helped me see it in a more reasoned and practical light, so thankyou for sharing your views and thoughts.
    No worries. Was an interesting discussion. Good luck in the gig.

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesC34
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Found it.. Here you go. Indepth discussion on wether or not agents can work with Opt out only.

    https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...ntractors.html

    Note that it was 11 years ago and no one has given a toss about it since then so I think it's a given agents can do it.
    Thanks. That is pretty much the clincher then. They have the cards.

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesC34
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    But if you read the context it talks about different rates of pay i.e there are different conditions for the different choices. Deciding to not deal with opt in's is a business decision and there conditions don't change depending on which one you pick. If you have both they cannot have different conditions, if you you only offer one option then it doesn't apply.

    Bit like MOTing a motorbike with indicators. If it has indicators they must all work. If it has no indicators then it's irrelevant
    OK. Well, although I still have a slight bitter feeling about it, you have helped me see it in a more reasoned and practical light, so thankyou for sharing your views and thoughts.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Found it.. Here you go. Indepth discussion on wether or not agents can work with Opt out only.

    https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...ntractors.html

    Note that it was 11 years ago and no one has given a toss about it since then so I think it's a given agents can do it.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 7 October 2021, 22:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by JamesC34 View Post

    I think they have lied. Regulation 32(13) states that the agency should not make the provision of their services conditional on entering into an opt-out.
    Opt in, opt out? What the agency regs are all about (part 2) (contractoruk.com).

    You probably have a point on the bigger picture though - this probably isn't the hill to die on!
    But if you read the context it talks about different rates of pay i.e there are different conditions for the different choices. Deciding to not deal with opt in's is a business decision and there conditions don't change depending on which one you pick. If you have both they cannot have different conditions, if you you only offer one option then it doesn't apply.

    Bit like MOTing a motorbike with indicators. If it has indicators they must all work. If it has no indicators then it's irrelevant

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesC34
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    Clients shouldn't be offering outside contractors permanent roles. The chances of them offering you one and you even accepting it are slim to nil and is open to negotiation. Again, your opt in status will have absoutely no bearing on this. The client will say I want him, i am not going to pay you a penny extra if you want to keep doing business with us. Agent says fine. Sorted. Same goes with handcuffs etc. All can be sorted by doing business without falling back to legal mumbo jumbo.
    I have been offered a permanent role before, so the chances are definitely some way above nil!

    Interesting point that the opt out status probably won't have a bearing in the real world.



    Leave a comment:


  • JamesC34
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    Ahh.. now we get to it... So they haven't lied to you. That is the terms of engaging with them. It is true, it's their choice and they can make it. Sue Ellen and Cojak both asked BiS if this was discrimiation and both got a different answer but to make that stick you'll have to escalate it. Right now your option is to take the gig on the agents terms or don't. Arguing whether it's legal, which is very complex and confusing, isn't helping.
    I think they have lied. Regulation 32(13) states that the agency should not make the provision of their services conditional on entering into an opt-out.
    Opt in, opt out? What the agency regs are all about (part 2) (contractoruk.com).

    You probably have a point on the bigger picture though - this probably isn't the hill to die on!

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by JamesC34 View Post

    I am not convinced it is useless. Opting out seems to throw obstacles in the way of the client ever offering a permanent role, or at least making it much more costly.
    Clients shouldn't be offering outside contractors permanent roles. The chances of them offering you one and you even accepting it are slim to nil and is open to negotiation. Again, your opt in status will have absoutely no bearing on this. The client will say I want him, i am not going to pay you a penny extra if you want to keep doing business with us. Agent says fine. Sorted. Same goes with handcuffs etc. All can be sorted by doing business without falling back to legal mumbo jumbo.

    You aren't convinced but you have zero evidence it is. Looks good on paper but I've not seen a single instance where it's helped.

    But equally, I do get the overall sense that it might not be the hill to die on.
    Finally. Understatement of the year that is.

    Leave a comment:


  • JamesC34
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    What you need to do is open a dialog with the agent. Non of this silly ignoring documents marlarky. Go back to them and tell them you want to stay opt'd in. If, which I suspect will be the case, they say we don't deal with opt in and you must opt out to go ahead then there you have it. You have no choice. Sign or bugger off.

    Forget this first to blink, trying to bully the agent and other silly games. You are the only one that is going to lose out here. Agent will blame you and get someone else in, client will grump about idiot contractors and then carry on.
    Your first paragraph is essentially what has already happened.

    Your 2nd paragraph has been formulated without a key bit of info. Without giving too much away, I am in a specialist industry where consultants are quite sought after. ....and the agent competes with other Agencies chasing the same gigs for their clients. I hold more cards than your typical IT contractor for example.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by JamesC34 View Post

    Yes.
    I feel they likely lied to me, saying I had no choice but to opt out in order to start the role - which doesn't seem to be true (from reading this thread).
    However I realise there are handcuffs in the contract that keep me with the agent for 12 months after contract (which I see from one of your earlier posts on this thread is likely unenforceable anyway).
    Ahh.. now we get to it... So they haven't lied to you. That is the terms of engaging with them. It is true, it's their choice and they can make it. Sue Ellen and Cojak both asked BiS if this was discrimiation and both got a different answer but to make that stick you'll have to escalate it. Right now your option is to take the gig on the agents terms or don't. Arguing whether it's legal, which is very complex and confusing, isn't helping.

    So, now you know your options. Nothing else to discuss.

    12 months is too long and is generally not enforceable but it doesn't mean it can be ignored. If you want to start in 8 months and the agents says no then that's probaly not allowed as it's too long. If you want to start a month later it's likely to come in to play.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X