Going direct

[Andy Hallett]

Without quoting the relevant clause it's difficult to give a view. But generally restrictions prevent going direct to client. Before advising someone would need to know

a) Your Agency Regs status
b) The restriction clause and associated definitions

[xara]

If OP is currently Client Co - Consultancy - Agency 1 - OP Ltd and is looking at going:
Client - Agency 2 - OP Ltd, they need to be VERY careful that Agency 2 is not on Client Co's PSL. If they are, there could be an issue.

I don’t know the details of the client’s PSL (although I should be able to find out), but if anyone is on there, it will be the consultancy. The client was not even aware of the existence of Agency 1 until recently. As for agency 2, given the pm’s relationship, they could be, and again I can find out, but I'm puzzled as to why their presence on the PSL (rather than agency 1) would be an issue?

Personally, I would get the PM to check if Agency 2 are on the PSL first. If they are, then get PM to talk to OP's agent and say that they'd like to engage client direct now that they cannot via the consultancy. Only then if Agency 2 are not on the PSL can they go straight to Agency 2.

But I think the end-client wants to keep things on the quiet side: to avoid further inflaming the situation with the consultancy (perhaps there is an equivalent handcuff clause on their side).

[xara]

Without quoting the relevant clause it's difficult to give a view. But generally restrictions prevent going direct to client. Before advising someone would need to know

a) Your Agency Regs status

It’s going back a fair bit. I cannot find explicit evidence searching back through email that I opted out. I know, I know.

b) The restriction clause and associated definitions

For a year after it stipulates that me/ltd cannot directly or indirectly engage with the end-client or consultancy, without paying a %, which is actually not *too* draconian. I'm wondering whether I should just up my rate and keep the money aside in case the agency come calling (presumably I don't actually have to volunteer the information), and let the end-client deal with any fallout on their side.

[WordIsBond]

I'm wondering whether I should just up my rate and keep the money aside in case the agency come calling (presumably I don't actually have to volunteer the information), and let the end-client deal with any fallout on their side.

Normally, I'd say if the client is going to agree to you upping your rate (and they probably will since you're cutting a middle man), just do a deal with your agency to pay them X and get released.

The risk in that is that they talk to the consultancy about it and then the client who wanted it kept quiet is angry and tells you to go away.

So, raising your rate, reserving the funds, and keeping quiet is a reasonable option. There's a risk of a fight, though, because "keeping quiet" can give the impression you are trying to cheat on the contract provision. That could make them angry and make them want a pound of flesh.

An alternative is to put it back on the client, since they are the ones who want it kept quiet. Show them your existing contract detailing the not-too-draconian %, and tell them you are happy to keep quiet if they will indemnify you against any claims on that front. Since it isn't that high, their risk is low, and you can sweeten it by saying you'll keep working at the same rate even though one middleman has been cut out.

[LondonManc]

I don’t know the details of the client’s PSL (although I should be able to find out), but if anyone is on there, it will be the consultancy. The client was not even aware of the existence of Agency 1 until recently. As for agency 2, given the pm’s relationship, they could be, and again I can find out, but I'm puzzled as to why their presence on the PSL (rather than agency 1) would be an issue?



But I think the end-client wants to keep things on the quiet side: to avoid further inflaming the situation with the consultancy (perhaps there is an equivalent handcuff clause on their side).

Sounds like it's more their risk than yours then. It would be nice to get that in writing but the key in all that I've said for comebacks on you is determining that agency 1 have no relationship with client therefore cannot claim loss of earnings. As they were not able to provide the service that Agency 2 can, you're in the clear. Just say that you're benched and open to offers and in the current climate they won't call you. The only risk is really on end client; if they have a relationship with someone who is still at client it could be interesting, but that's the client's problem.