Direct v Agency

[sharclar]

I have always gone through an agency until this gig where I am direct, and touch wood have never had a problem either way but reading the threads about unsigned time sheets etc has gotten me thinking about what would happen if the worse came to pass.

When through an agency there is a reasonable level of protection that if you have a signed time sheet and are opted in (I think I got this the right way round but correct me if wrong) they must pay you. I assume the protection offered when direct is no more than any other B2B contract?

I think it comes down too size, the smaller the outfit the less chance you will be paid on time correctly, the larger the outfit the more legislative hurdles they usually have to jump through. Unfortunately throughout the course of my contracting career I have had both large and small companies surprise me, but overall it sticks to this rule !!

[Gentile]

I've only contracted direct once (as opposed to fixed-price jobs, where the money came up front). It was a complete pain in the arse. I'd worked with the organisation concerned (a large public utility firm) twice previously, each time through an agency. When they came calling a third time, and I knew the guys involved because I'd worked with them before, it seemed like a no-brainer just to go direct (the agency had since gone out of the picture for various reasons).

I've never had so many problems getting paid in my life. The guys I was working with were fine to deal with on a personal level, and just as happy with my work as they had been before, but to their accounts staff at head office any invoice from my ContractorCo was just another bill that they delayed paying until they couldn't possibly get away with holding out any more. In the end, I had to threaten to stop the project mid-flow in order to get the back payments I was owed (which amounted to about four months work at that point), and it soured the relationship. I'd never work on a pay-for-play, billable hours basis direct with any client ever again. Dealing with agents has its problems, but getting paid in a timely manner has never been one of them in my experience.

[SueEllen]

I've been direct more than once and the worse payers where both a very large well-known company and a small company. Oddly the medium sized companies were better at paying on time.

In terms of contract clauses the companies who were use to using contractors/other businesses had the better contracts and size played no part.

The only thing I would suggest is read the contract very carefully and use a lawyer who specialises in the particular area you deal in not just b2b contracts if you need some clauses redrafted.

[BolshieBastard]

I have always gone through an agency until this gig where I am direct, and touch wood have never had a problem either way but reading the threads about unsigned time sheets etc has gotten me thinking about what would happen if the worse came to pass.

When through an agency there is a reasonable level of protection that if you have a signed time sheet and are opted in (I think I got this the right way round but correct me if wrong) they must pay you. I assume the protection offered when direct is no more than any other B2B contract?

Yes, this is a real world option where companies can and do stretch their payment terms to you if they so desire. However, if they are late, you do have some options available to you but, you have to do the leg work yourself.

[SimonMac]

I've only been direct the once in the last ten years and it was the most pleasurable billing experience I've ever had. Never late, alwys well communicated. Just a shame that the client (a charity) was such an awkward place to work in terms of location. Not far enough to overnight but just a bit too far for a daily commute.

As long as they pay on time all other factors don't really matter

[NickNick]

It was more a hypothetical what if, I am direct now, today was my first "pay day" so got me thinking what if. Major down side with direct is longer payment terms

I've only been direct the once in the last ten years and it was the most pleasurable billing experience I've ever had. Never late, alwys well communicated. Just a shame that the client (a charity) was such an awkward place to work in terms of location. Not far enough to overnight but just a bit too far for a daily commute.

[nomadd]

It was more a hypothetical what if, I am direct now, today was my first "pay day" so got me thinking what if. Major down side with direct is longer payment terms

TBH, in my entire contracting career, I've only ever worked direct for one client. Mind you, that was for 4.5 years.

They were a big company who paid on a one month in arrears basis. Fortunately I never had any problems with them.

But, as you say, it's always a risk. And many on here have had to accept 60/90/120 day payment terms on direct contracts.

[SimonMac]

Again this is true but again I would guess even though it is longer you will have less hassle in the long run.

SimonMac LTD must have couple of 100K float so can swallow the first payment time

SimonMac Ltd always has enough to cover me for 6 months not any where near 100k (unless it was lira) as SimonMac the person had a tulip load of debt which the first 18 months of contracting has cleared up

[northernladuk]

It was more a hypothetical what if, I am direct now, today was my first "pay day" so got me thinking what if. Major down side with direct is longer payment terms

Again this is true but again I would guess even though it is longer you will have less hassle in the long run.

SimonMac LTD must have couple of 100K float so can swallow the first payment time

[SimonMac]

The downside is agents can be arses. What they should pay you and what they do as you have seen on the boards can be a whole different affair and despite this level of protection you can end up fighting tooth and nail for it.

As long as the client is a reasonably sized outfit I would hazard a guess you would have less payment problems in the long run. Couple of late payments maybe but not the hassle that an agent and introduce. It would be good if someone with long term direct to clients contracts can confirm.

It was more a hypothetical what if, I am direct now, today was my first "pay day" so got me thinking what if. Major down side with direct is longer payment terms

[northernladuk]

The downside is agents can be arses. What they should pay you and what they do as you have seen on the boards can be a whole different affair and despite this level of protection you can end up fighting tooth and nail for it.

As long as the client is a reasonably sized outfit I would hazard a guess you would have less payment problems in the long run. Couple of late payments maybe but not the hassle that an agent and introduce. It would be good if someone with long term direct to clients contracts can confirm.

[NotAllThere]

You assume correctly.

[SimonMac]

I have always gone through an agency until this gig where I am direct, and touch wood have never had a problem either way but reading the threads about unsigned time sheets etc has gotten me thinking about what would happen if the worse came to pass.

When through an agency there is a reasonable level of protection that if you have a signed time sheet and are opted in (I think I got this the right way round but correct me if wrong) they must pay you. I assume the protection offered when direct is no more than any other B2B contract?