Im with Wrecker on this. As someone who is pestered by agencies I cant use because they are not on our supplier list and know it, to look at CVs for jobs I dont have then I have very little time for Agency A.

Whenever I have used agencies to get work then I have a written agreement with them that states what their cut will be so both sides know what they can expect from the fees charged to the client.

If Agency A wants to look at anything its the practices of their staff that landed them in this position.

Not to mention the fact that agency A lied to the OP to get him on board in the first place!

Wrecker has it right imo. Don’t understand the others who blame the open.

Dangeourbrain – yep and the law will be that by accepting an interview via the agency, the op and client have agreed to engagement terms.

The agency will look to the client for financial redress but they could choose to go after the op too.

I would be prepared to suggest that the agency have a 99% chance of success in a court. If this is the case, the op should have associated insurances to cover this sort of occurrence and the agency will use the op’s Ltd co.

If the op wants my professional advice (foc) I will happily advise on the route to take as I deal with this sort of stuff everyday. Email me directly if you want, email in profile.

Stu.

the law will be that by accepting an interview via the agency, the op and client have agreed to engagement terms.

Surely not if they misrepresented their position by claiming to the OP that they were already engaged by the end client when they weren’t

Something to think about, agency A were only engaged with as they got someone that agency B couldn’t, someone better, the OP, that has to be worth a few quid. I think that both the company and agency A behaved a tad questionabley though not in a way that is uncommon. I also think that irrelevant if you think agent A should get s fee, agent B sure as hell shouldn’t.

And as someone who has been both hirer and recruiter, on both sides of this conundrum I feel I pro am speak with a bit more knowledge on this subject than most.

There is no ownership of client.

Look at it another way, if they hadn’t have made the introduction, the client or op would not have received benefit.

By agreeing to the interview, all concerned agreed terms – regardless of how the initial introduction was made. If this had all ended well, the client and op would have been delighted the the agency made this sort of approach.

There is no misrepresentation once they’ve all agreed to an interview (in this example).

Again, lunge is correct.

I don’t totally believe that the op and the client didn’t know what was happening or the implications of ‘back-dooring’ this contract, but let’s put it down to experience. Lesson learned.

Was thinking about this last night and I think one of the big things people are forgetting is that the OP was found by Agency A and not Agency B. Those suggesting that they should just get the same person (or using an analogy of the same product) from Agency B forget that they can’t, only Agency A contacted him, got him to interview, got him through the process.

This is why Agency A should get paid, they used their expertise to find a candidate, contact him and market him to a company who they knew would like him, they did this so well that they got an interview and then a placement out of it. The OP got a job he wanted at a rate he was happy with, Agency A got a fee, the client got the right man, all was well in the world.

Hmmm, sounds like most of the other underhand things STW’s seem to encourage. Estate agent markets your house, STW’r tries to get out of it by not paying them type of thing.

except that overwhelmingly the consensus on this thread does not bear that out. 🙄

this is not employment law

a contract is not only a signed piece of paper with “contract” written on it

3. Ignore recruitment company A, and let their large legal team sort it out.
4. Negotiate something between offer 1 and 2 that draws a line under the issue.

options 3) and 4) are the same thing

I would be prepared to suggest that the agency have a 99% chance of success in a court.

I would agree.

OP, you’re setup as a limited company? Wind it up and set up a new ltd company. Problem then stops for you and is between A and client and will be in relation to A recouping historical costs for a contract that has now ceased.

that’s absolutely watertight legal advice and nothing could go wrong with it