How common is that in contracts and should I ask to have this removed?

[Criticular]

A contract says:

In the event the Contractor within the 12 months during or following the cessation or termination of the Agreement, provide the services of the Contractor other than through Agency, the Contractor shall pay the appropriate transfer fee of 12 x the weekly Contractor rate specified in the Schedule.

How common is that in contracts and should I ask to have this removed before signing?

[Cid]

this is very common..
its to stop you going direct to the client and suggesting you cut out the middle man.

[Criticular]

this is very common..
its to stop you going direct to the client and suggesting you cut out the middle man.

Did anyone try to say to an agent remove it or I will not sign?

[northernladuk]

Did anyone try to say to an agent remove it or I will not sign?

This protects the agent's revenue stream so not a chance they will remove it.

It is actually unenforceable in most cases as it's far too generic and 12 months is too long. No chance that will stand up in court. Handcuffs have to be fair and reasonable that that one is not. Doesn't really help you knowing that because the agent will try pull it and you might have to get lawyered up to defend it.

That said... Does it even make sense? Looks very badly written to me but them I'm a bit crap at legalese.

services of the Contractor other than through Agency,

[WTFH]

A contract says:


How common is that in contracts and should I ask to have this removed before signing?

There was a guy back in 2016 who talked about minimising it...

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...t=#post2301627

What do you look for and try to renegotiate in a new contract?
...- minimise period of time when you cannot work directly with a client if they want your service again

[simes]

Alternatively, if the consensus is that the current wording is unenforceable, sign the contract, do the gig and if going direct is a later option, do it knowing there will likely not be a problem...!

[northernladuk]

Alternatively, if the consensus is that the current wording is unenforceable, sign the contract, do the gig and if going direct is a later option, do it knowing there will likely not be a problem...!

But when there is, it will be a doozy with the potential for the contractor to have to pay 3 months of his rate.

Not the best advice I don't think

[DeludedKitten]

How common is that in contracts and should I ask to have this removed before signing?

If the contract is reasonably short then having a twelve month clause may be seen to be unreasonable. I've negotiated in the past to have the clause reworded so that it was to the length of the contract or twelve months whichever was the shorter - if I do a three month project then the clause stays at three months, if I do a two year project then it's a twelve month clause. Most agencies that I've discussed it with have agreed that was a fair compromise, particularly since the initial role tends to be three months.

I think there is something in the agency regulations that means that you can get away with going direct regardless of the contract, but it depends on whether you are inside or outside the regulations.

[simes]

Not the best advice I don't think

"Not the best advice, I think." Otherwise a double negative will have the new people thinking you're thinking my advice was spot on.

A fair point though. But just to ruffle your feathers still more, before the whole Private Sector IR35 malarkey popped up, and while people were confused about how IR35 operated and were calling out to the HMRC for clarity, my thinking on this score was actually, "Leave it as is, because all the court cases are coming down in contractors' favours."

Clarity through changes might have made the devil we knew to become a problem.

Anyway, not highlighting the opposing teams' errors of their ways is all I'm trying to exemplify.

[man]

I think there is something in the agency regulations that means that you can get away with going direct regardless of the contract, but it depends on whether you are inside or outside the regulations.

If I remember correctly, under the conduct regs 2003 the restriction clause is maximum 8 weeks irrespective of contract (if you haven't opted out of course).

I wouldn't want to test it, particularly as sensible negotiation (ideally pre-contract) will usually fix the problem.