Agency says sign opt-out declaration before putting me forward

[sigma]

Spoke to agent on the phone - he says will send me mail. When I reply confirming (and filling in opt-out declaration) he will submit c.v. to client.

I don't see a way round this. I'd like to opt-in, but the declaration states that a weeks notice is required if sign (and therfore opt-out) and later on decide to opt-in, but once the contract starts one cannot change to opt-in at all. And they are looking for someone to start ASAP.

[TheFaQQer]

For any opt out to be valid, it must be signed before you are introduced to the client.

The agency cannot insist that you opt out - if they do, this is illegal and you should report them to BIS.

[BolshieBastard]

For any opt out to be valid, it must be signed before you are introduced to the client.

The agency cannot insist that you opt out - if they do, this is illegal and you should report them to BIS.

However Rullion Manchester will not submit you for a role if you insist onnot opting out.

[sigma]

However Rullion Manchester will not submit you for a role if you insist on not opting out.

I'll assume that Rullion are not too worried about the BIS lawyers sending them a stern email asking them to stop being naughty and if they don't comply they will get another even sterner email in six months time.

[tractor]

...

I'll assume that Rullion are not too worried about the BIS lawyers sending them a stern email asking them to stop being naughty and if they don't comply they will get another even sterner email in six months time.

They probably won't because until people actually start standing up to this type of behaviour, they have no worries.

Report them to BIS, provide IPSE with the full details including copies of any emails (whether you are a member or not) and if they still refuse, just add them to your blacklist. Also, provide the same details to REC and APSCO. They won't do anything about it but if enough people make a stand, some traction is likely to be gained over time.

Also, I don't believe that they can place conditions upon you that make you give notice of retraction of an opt out. You are quite within your rights to prepare an email and hit send as you are walking throught the clients door on day 1. Hopefully someone will come along and confirm this but remember IANAL and I don't believe there is any legal precedent for this, so dependent upon your contract, they may as a result just curtail it anyway.

[Contreras]

Also, I don't believe that they can place conditions upon you that make you give notice of retraction of an opt out. You are quite within your rights to prepare an email and hit send as you are walking throught the clients door on day 1. Hopefully someone will come along and confirm this but remember IANAL and I don't believe there is any legal precedent for this, so dependent upon your contract, they may as a result just curtail it anyway.

My understanding is that an opt-out remains valid for the duration of the subsequent contract. In theory if you wanted to withdraw from the opt-out then the agent could require your notice to terminate the current contract, so that in effect is your notice to opt in.

It has been said that you can withdraw the opt-out with immediate effect any time before going on site. Whether this is supported by case law I have no idea but I have doubts about the validity once a signed contract is in place. In practice no agent wants to lose a contract at the 11th hour so that may have something to do with it.

[mudskipper]

For any opt out to be valid, it must be signed before you are introduced to the client.

The agency cannot insist that you opt out - if they do, this is illegal and you should report them to BIS.

See cojak's thread - it's not illegal and the BIS consider it a business decision.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1524460

[tractor]

...

See cojak's thread - it's not illegal and the BIS consider it a business decision.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1524460

Wasn't this the situation where they told Cojak one thing and then another the opposite?

Shirley, this is a prime subject for IPSE to sink it's teeth into?

[mudskipper]

Wasn't this the situation where they told Cojak one thing and then another the opposite?

Shirley, this is a prime subject for IPSE to sink it's teeth into?

Having reread the thread it looks like Wanderer pointed out that the regulations contradict what they told cojak.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1530868