Reply to: Pendragon - a warning for you contractors

[MarillionFan]

Obviously an agent who doesnt want to tell you the truth.

Ahhhh. What a nice chap

[eliquant]

Maybe he was a recruitment agent with a heart and decided that a white lie would not hurt you ....

or maybe he was a crazed pathalogical LIAR !

Don't think you are the only one who has experienced this, I have also.

I remember around 2001 there was another strange breed of agent that used to call you up almost hyper ventilating telling you that they just caught a whiff of a great new opportunity exclusive to their agency and they were "so" enthusiastic about "getting you in there", then after the phone was put down you never heard from them EVER again, it was like dealing with a religious fundamentalist nut and the funny thing was that I got several of these types of phone calls that led NOWHERE.

[cojak]

I actually contracted through Pendragon earlier this year (for the same client too,) so no new references would have been required.

I was mildly surprised to get called by Pendragon this morning asking whether I was still available for work. They have now supossedly forwarded my cv to another client for consideration.

I am not holding my breath... but am wondering what I should do?

How about amending your original post to

"...5/10 - could do better.

..and you Richard, you little tinker..."

..but reading the last post here. I'd do nowt.

[0mega]

Hopefully not too many clientco's since I heard recently that all contractors using Pendragon at a Government site near Reading are having problems obtaining their money.

Apparently Pendragon have been paid many weeks worth of legally invoiced money by the end client, but are flatly refusing to pay contractors anything.

I had the same issues with them earlier this year, and again about 10 times in 2008.

Avoid like the plague, it's one thing not working and not getting paid; but to be working and not getting paid because Pendragon want to keep ALL your dosh is a lot less fun than being benched!

[PinkPoshRat]

I am wondering just how many clientco's still use Pendragon..?

[OwlHoot]

I actually contracted through Pendragon earlier this year (for the same client too,) so no new references would have been required.

I was mildly surprised to get called by Pendragon this morning asking whether I was still available for work. They have now supossedly forwarded my cv to another client for consideration.

I am not holding my breath... but am wondering what I should do?

Maybe it's more cock up than conspiracy - I mean I get confused sometimes when two or three agencies contact me about the same role. So I suppose agents can be the same when dealing with dozens of candidates for every role.

But if you're a "known quantity" for Pendragon, it sounds more likely they just wanted to spin this out in the hope of finding something else to put you forward for before you found a contract through another agency.

(although it's puzzling why an agency would go to those lengths with so many candidates to choose from at the moment).

[PinkPoshRat]

I actually contracted through Pendragon earlier this year (for the same client too,) so no new references would have been required.

I was mildly surprised to get called by Pendragon this morning asking whether I was still available for work. They have now supossedly forwarded my cv to another client for consideration.

I am not holding my breath... but am wondering what I should do?

[OwlHoot]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I went for an interview with a client in Exeter mid June 2009 and I was told that the client wanted to offer me the gig but had issues with my high rate. I was asked if I would consider £75pd less by the agency. I had to say yes, and was then told that they would put this new offer to the client.

:::

6 weeks pass, no word from agency, so I call them and was given the same bull$h it again. I decided to contact the client direct.
Cutting the story short, the client told me that I had not been offered the role and that this information had been passed to the agency the day after the interview.

Agency name: PENDRAGON IS
Agency Rep: Richard Crowcombe (who had the cheek to send me a request to recommend him on linkedin!!)

Another reason occurred to me why an agency might do this (maybe pretty obvious to everyone else, but I don't think it was explicitly mentioned).

Most contractors have cottoned on to the idea that giving references prior to an offer or even interview is a Bad Idea, as it exposes their referees to the risk of agent badgering with no benefit to the contractor (just the opposite most likely).

But by lying that an offer is actually on the table, an unscrupulous agent can induce even a contractor who wouldn't provide references up front to cough them up ...

On that assumption, what's the next stage? To provide references only after a contract has been signed?

So, PinkPoshRat (if you're reading this), did this agent ask you for references following the offer?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

In the context of the OP, it seems pointless. Libel law still applies if it is not true.

Allegedly.

That was my point.

[BrilloPad]

If you substitute "without prejudice" with "I'm not admitting anything here, but....", you'll understand its meaning and its use.

Documents listed as being "without prejudice" have still successfully been used against the writer in court anyway, so personally I don't see the point.

I seem to remember there is an equivalent in divorce cases called calderbank. though in divorce cases it is binding.

[RichardCranium]

I use it "without prejudice" when making negotiations with a supplier on behalf of ClientCo prior to a formal contract being signed.

Such emails / letters as "Would it be a good idea for you to do things this way?" or "Might it be much cheaper if we sacrifice items 7 and 15?" or "Although the MD said item 8 is non-negotiable, what would the end date be without it?" all get "without prejudice" added as a way of saying "this is not an instruction, merely an exploratory enquiry".

It is generally accepted as a way of discussing things pertaining to a contract without actually changing the contract, either implicitly or explicitly.

Whether that holds water, I don't know. But it is common practice in the public sector when dealing with large private sector suppliers.



In the context of the OP, it seems pointless. Libel law still applies if it is not true.

Allegedly.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I dealt with a client manager many years ago, and he started every email with "without prejudice".

I guess he must have been stupid

Fixed that.

[expat]

Heard many bad things about Pendragon, and I worked with other contractors who contracted through them, all say bad stuff about them. In fact last year we thought they were going down. So I am surprised to see them on the PCG site.

What do they have to do for that? Pay the PCG some money I suppose? So why would it say anything good about them?

[zamzummim]

Heard many bad things about Pendragon, and I worked with other contractors who contracted through them, all say bad stuff about them. In fact last year we thought they were going down. So I am surprised to see them on the PCG site.

[TroubleAtMill]

There has long been a general perception that putting "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" in a letter / e-mail means that it cannot be used against you in court.

That is correct, but only applies in very specific circumstances.

It is usually used when negotiating a settlement. A settlement offer is made "without prejudice" so that the other person cannot produce your offer at court and use it against you i.e. - the offer doesn't prejudice your case.

This is so that the parties can make attempts at resolution without the offer coming back to bite them. This only applies to the offer though. Presenting evidence, arguing your case (and virtually everything else) can be fully admitted in court..

A couple of years ago I was helping someone out with debt collectors by researching other people's experiences and how they responded. Basically, every letter we sent setting out our position (i.e. you're not legally entitled to be chasing the debt until you show some evidence so GTFO ) was prefixed with WP to indicate that this wasn't our final position!