[Closed] Anyone fancy offering a legal moral opinion on this?

[quote=franksinatra ]we pay cash in hand direct to the cleaner And is this money declared for tax?
https://www.gov.uk/report-cash-in-hand-pay

I suspect that your place isnt the only house that the cleaner cleans and maybe she needs to keep onside with the agency to enable her to make a decent living.

And is this money declared for tax?

Do you think FS does his cleaner's tax return for her? Do you do the tax return for every self employed person who does work for you? Your link is bobbins as it refers to employees.

[url= https://www.gov.uk/au-pairs-employment-law/nannies ]Anyone who works in a private home is treated as an employee if they only work for one family[/url]

Anyone fancy offering a legal moral opinion on this?

You need to set up special purpose vehicle in a non-extradition agreement country and get her to offshore her own banking. Then pay as a gift to her monies that she will then 'invest' in your SPV and recive a 'dividend' equivalent to her wages, which she will no longer pay UK tax on, bonus. You can then claim that she cleans your house because she enjoys it. Then everyone involved should shoot themselves.

Long time ago I was employed through an agency on something which went on longer than planned with the agency getting their fee. Employer and I negotiated with the agency an end point for their payment. Seemed the best way for everyone to move on.

I should never of got into this contract

Regrets, you've had a few, but then again, too few to mention ?

Cleaner is happy to step away from the agency, we are the only clean she got through them. Also, I would be paying the paying direc to her the money I save on the fee so her hourly rate goes up,

I knew some smart arse would bring up tax, only you are not so smart as she is self employed so tax is her issue, not mine.

I like the idea of a negotiated end payment to get out of the contract, thanks

Very good earnie. By coincidence also, the lady at the agency is a bit of a tramp.

If you don't get anything for the £2.50 then stop paying it, sounds like a racket. We have a sort of similar arrangement, but the agent fee is supposed to guarantee a replacement cleaner same day if ours is ill or otherwise indisposed. If a replacement doesn't turn up I make them repay it.

We did similar years ago. Paying money to an agency for what basically amounted to an introduction fee. After a few months we just dealt directly with the cleaner. No problems.

[quote=franksinatra ]
I knew some smart arse would bring up tax, only you are not so smart as she is self employed so tax is her issue, not mine.My point is - are you at risk of "upsetting the apple cart" by making changes to the arrangement? If this is the only contract she has through that agency, perhaps not though?

We have a sort of similar arrangement, but the agent fee is supposed to guarantee a replacement cleaner same day if ours is ill or otherwise indisposed. If a replacement doesn't turn up I make them repay it.

Yes, I think this is very common. It's not so much of a introduction/retainer fee but a provision fee - it just so happens they are providing the same person every week (most of the time) so doing very little for their money.

I think the 12 months not working for them bit is also pretty common too but no idea how enforceable it is.

IIRC there's something about unfair restrictions on your right to work. A 3rd party saying you cant work for someone definately sounds like that.

IANAL

I'd be looking for some loophole in the contract - surely it can't be totally watertight? Maybe you can employ her in some way which doesn't fit within the terms. Got to be worth looking at - at least then you can say you did it your way.

I think you're worrying about it too much. Just stop paying them and get on with it.

If I understand 'agency' correctly - she doesn't work for the agency, the agency works for her - if they're not actively finding work for her and not actively managing your cleaning contract - supplying a replacement, for instance, when she's sick or on holiday then what 'agency' are they doing apart from politely receiving payment.

If she only does work for you then she doesn't have much to lose if the agency gets given the heave-ho. If you are one of a number of clients she has through the agency then its in her interest that any agreements in place are honoured perhaps. But if not and she's unlikely to require the services of the agency any time soon and you won't either you can maybe suggest to the agency that the introduction has more than been paid for. It seems to me that they have no ties to the cleaner if you're paying her directly and if they've done more than well out of the deal then I doubt they would go to any effort to prevent her from working for anyone - how would they actually achieve that?

If you do stop paying the agency will the cleaner get a nice £1.25/hr pay rise? 🙂

Maybe you can employ her in some way which doesn't fit within the terms.

Sack her, and get your wife/sister/brother/whatever to employ her (doing your cleaning). Give her a second chance in 12 months time and employ her again.

Nothing the agency can do. They always try to charge very expensive fees.

Could I suggest that if you do just take her on directly you change the day or time she comes. I don't want to besmirch your cleaner's intelligence but if you cancel your contract with them and she goes back to the agency and says she is available for more work but not the exact time she was normally with you, it doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together if she is not quick on a plausible reason.

Aaaaah so... The Agency found you a decent cleaner, so decent in fact you want to employ her directly and in thanks, they should be shafted?

Negotiate a proper exit with them and do the decent thing. They earned their crust when they found 'the one' whether you now like it or not.

Nice one ernie - that's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of 🙂

If she has no dealings with the agency, and you stop having dealings with the agency, how would they know? Are they going to send a private investigator to peer through your windows?

The Agency found you a decent cleaner, so decent in fact you want to employ her directly and in thanks, they should be shafted?

Seems reasonable to me to pay a finder's fee, but unreasonable to expect that would be an ongoing payment every time she works until the heat death of the universe. I'd reckon after 12 months they've had their pound of flesh for the fifteen seconds' work they'll have done to earn it.

Anyone fancy offering an [s]a legal moral[/s] opinion on this?

Yes, do your own cleaning you lazy bastard!

Just spoken tot he cleaner. We are the only client she got through the agency and would be delighted to sever all ties with them. So no risk there.

The exact term in the contract is:

For a period of 12 months .... .. the Householder shall not engage directly or indirectly, as an employee, contractor, agent or otherwise any cleaner who has been introduced by us to you.

I reckon I might just get her to pop around to do some ironing then....

the Householder shall not engage directly or indirectly, as an employee, contractor, agent or otherwise any cleaner who has been introduced by us to you.

Luckily you pay her in cash so presumably there is no way they can prove she isn't just popping round for a chat and a nice cup of tea. Unless of course they want to engage in a major surveillance operation. Not what you would expect from a cleaning agency, and not very good for business I would have thought.

.

boblo - Member

They earned their crust ...

[i]"We are the only client she got through the agency"[/i]

Impressive graft on the part of the agency.

Just spoke to our HR bods. They've said a) that's bloody weird and b) talk to ACAS.

Not a lawyer - but that clause stinks of being extremely un-enforceable.

I am going to order a fake moustache for her and that way, even with a major surveillance exercise, they will never catch us.

[i]I knew some smart arse would bring up tax, only you are not so smart as she is self employed so tax is her issue, not mine.[/i]

I'm not sure how it works with an Agency, but if you take her on directly, she shouldn't be self employed. Unless she is free to send someone in her place, works for other clients and all the other 'criteria' etc.

Happens everywhere but its just a tax dodge, innit.

Will she have to wear the fake moustache whilst cleaning? Will you put it in her contract?

I am going to order a fake moustache for her and that way, even with a major surveillance exercise, they will never catch us.

Careful. She might be chipped.

That's pretty standard though the period varies. Say you were doing work for someone using various subbies etc, you'd be pretty miffed if your client tried to go direct. You accepted those conditions when there was a risk the cleaner might be rubbish but now they're OK and there's no risk, you don't?

Has she been in place for more than 12 months? If so, you've no problem. If less, reach a proper agreement with the Agency. Treat them as you'd like them to treat you.

Say you were doing work for someone using various subbies etc, you'd be pretty miffed if your client tried to go direct.

But in this case you would be employing the subbies where as, in my case, I (the client) am already employing her.

I like the idea of a negotiated end payment to get out of the contract, thanks

boblo - Member

You accepted those conditions when there was a risk the cleaner might be rubbish but now they're OK and there's no risk, you don't?

When was there ever a time when the cleaner might be "rubbish"? Don't agencies have a contractual obligation to use suitable labour not "rubbish" ?

And I don't know what you mean by : "You accepted those conditions when there was a risk the cleaner might be rubbish", why on earth would franksinatra be more prepared to pay £2.50 an hour to the agency for a rubbish cleaner than for a good one ?

I would expect him to be [u]less[/u] likely to accept those conditions when there was a risk the cleaner might be rubbish.

Who signed the agency contract? You?

I suspect there would be nothing stopping your wife, entirely independently and coincidentally not a signatory to the agency contract, employing the cleaner.

The agency had the responsibility to provide a non rubbish cleaner. Presumably it was more convenient for the op to go through an agency and have them look after the recruitment and warrant the cleaner would be OK. That's what agencies are paid for. If those services were of no value, he should have put an ad in the paper, saved his money and recruited direct. He didn't. He chose to accept the agencies conditions when it suited him and now it doesn't, he's belly aching about the cost.

That is not cricket and you can't have it both ways.

Is the cleaner with the "agency" under her own name? (say Mrs Jones)

As the cleaner does other jobs, does she have a "company name"? (say Clenaer4U)

If So, tell the agency you no longer need Mrs Jones.

Then employ Cleaner4U

You not employing Mrs Jones any more, but a company who going to clean you place. as far as you know there a couple people working for Cleaner4U so it be covered due to sickness etc.

boblo - Member

The agency had the responsibility to provide a non rubbish cleaner.

So why did you say : [i]"You accepted those conditions when there was a risk the cleaner might be rubbish"[/i] 😕

Because there was an implicit risk the agency was covering. Now the op is happy the cleaner is OK, there is no risk unless she goes off the boil. I think you misunderstood. There's always a risk people don't turn out for all sorts of reasons, being rubbish one of them. The agency covers this and it's their responsibility to find the right candidates. Sometimes they don't despite claiming they have.

Well it doesn't make any sense to claim that the OP was happy to pay an extra £2.50 to the agency when there was a risk that the cleaner was rubbish but not now that he is satisfied with the cleaner. I would expect the complete reserve. Who wants to pay [i]more[/i] for a crap service ?

And you seem to suggest a moral justification on the part of the agency, the OP says : [i]"the introduction has long since paid for itself".[/i] I have no idea what the time period is, and presumably you don't either, but there clearly comes a time when the introduction fee no longer becomes justified.

[i]We recently emplyed a cleaner through an introduction agency. The cleaner is excellent but the agency are not. We pay the cleaner direct, she works for us (as opposed to being an agency temp) but the contract we have with the agency means that we pay them a retainer fo £2.50 for each hour that she works.

I should never of got into this contract as we don't get anything for the £2.50 (the introduction has long since paid for itself.)

We want to bin the agency as we get nothing for that money but their contract says that we cannot employ the cleaner directly for 12 months after the end of the contract. Given that that we pay cash in hand direct to the cleaner I'm struggling to see how this is enforcable.
[/i]

Now imagine you work for the Agency that supplied said cleaner to a household that now wants to renege on the deal - you'd be a bit annoyed and out of pocket. Now imagine if this actually happened in your day job - you'd be pi55ed off and possibly seeking legal action.

And [i]the introduction has long since paid for itself[/i] doesn't seem to tie in with [i]we recently emplyed a cleaner through an introduction agency[/i]

And how would you know the costs they had to get this Cleaner?

To be blunt. You signed a contract and the Agency delivered. Now you are trying to get out of the contract, ie save yourself money by doing someone out of theirs.

Not nice.

Out of interest OP. What area does she work in? I'm looking for a cleaner.

Ernie, Ernie, Ernie...

When there's a risk like this you either cover it through insurance (by paying an agency) or manage it (by doing your own recruitment and ensuring the candidate is 'good'). I'm not suggesting the op would be paying for a rubbish service silly, he's paying insurance in case he got one.

Now he's happy, he's decided that's not necessary. However, he can't unilaterally expect the agency to share his view. There may be conditions attached to the contract he was happy to sign not so long ago that stop him poaching the agencies business. I.e. the magical 12 month clause mentioned above.

If he wants to release himself from the contract he entered into, he should either reach agreement with the agency or get himself another cleaner not piss on the agencies chips.

The original question? It's both immoral and taking the piss.

<edit> @BR Thank Christ for that, wall-head-bang