Unpaid invoice

[howmanyusernames]

I have my own business, which is recruitment.
I sent a CV to a client in Jan 2017, they came back to me in Feb 2017 and wanted to interview them. After many emails back and forth, the candidate ended up saying she didn't want to work for that company.

Recently, the same company had a late invoice, and I no-one was getting back to me. I went onto LinkedIn to find a finance contact (November 2018), and when looking through the people who worked there I came across the candidate I sent over in Jan 2017. The candidate had started working there in July 2017.

In my terms, it states ‘The Client will pay an Introduction Fee to the Agency in respect of each Introduction by the Agency which results in an accepted offer of Engagement within 12 months of such Introduction’.

I have gone back to the client, but they have said the emails shows the candidate 'withdrew from the recruitment process with me' (she actually withdrew from the company, not that it's relevant), she then 'some months later' applied through a different agency and they employed her, but she no longer works there (again, not relevant, but on LinkedIn it's showing she is still working there).
They also mention the time it's taken to get in touch about it, even though I'd already explained the reason how I found out she was working there.

The email was then signed off 'Whilst I appreciate this may be disappointing, we have worked closely with you over the years and we would like to think you would look to the future'.....!

I have worked with this client for probably 10+ years, but in the last 3 years have made maybe 2 placements with them. This is despite them always having roles and me working tirelessly on them. Sometimes they will come back to me after 4-8 weeks of sending a CV to say they want to interview the person....and the candidate has by then found another role....

I just wondered what people would advise?

Court. I’ve done a split fee with someone I know has placed the candidate and is now not responding to my emails. Experience tells me not to hang around. When I worked at Michael Page, their legal department threatened action literally on the 31st day, it used to piss me off because we often then list the client, but if they aren’t paying then they were never a client

Lost not list.

Also learn how to sell retainers it’ll change your life

The problem you've got is the wording of your clause. Your introduction did not result in an accepted offer of engagement. It was the introduction by the other agency that led to her being employed.

Some agencies (including Michael Page who are mentioned by Inliverpool1 above) have a clause simply says the client must pay if they engage the candidate within x months of introduction. If your clause was similar they would clearly be liable. As things stand I'm afraid I don't think they owe you anything.

I think they do owe you but thy also sound like hardwork as clients but you need to weigh up the bad feeling that would be created and the value of the business in the long term.

prh47bridge - but it doesn’t state the engagement has to be through me? It just says ‘an accepted offer of engagement’?

RB68 - I did look at the business they’ve given me over the last 3 years, and while it’s been consistent, placement wise I’m working very hard for minimal return. An example is even now, a candidate had an interview beginning of December, they’ve chased me several times for an update, I’ve chased the client, and we still don’t have anything from them either way. This is what they do, and I then lose candidates or it effects my reputation as an agency. I’ve maybe had 2 placements in 3 years due to them not getting back to me in a reasonable time, which isn’t great.

Did the candidate stay with them long ? 3 months ? Tbh they don’t sound like a very good company anyway, pissed your candidate around and then they left, I’m sure you can find better clients and every recruiter needs a source

but it doesn’t state the engagement has to be through me? It just says ‘an accepted offer of engagement’?

It says, "in respect of each Introduction by the Agency which results in an accepted offer of Engagement". The crucial words in that sentence are "which results in". That means the company is only liable if it was your introduction that led to the candidate getting a job. On the information you have given that does not appear to be the case. Your introduction went nowhere because the candidate withdrew. It was the later introduction by another agency that resulted in an accepted offer of employment.

If the candidate and this company had co-operated to engineer a situation in which you didn't get paid you would have a case as, in that situation, it would be your introduction which led to the offer even if the offer didn't come through you. In the circumstances described I don't think you have a case.

Take a look at Michael Page's terms. They are easy to find online. The relevant clause in their terms says what you want your clause to say - that the client must pay if they employ someone within x months after introduction. Crucially, their clause does not say anything about the employment being as a result of the introduction.

👆🏻

I've just had a read of Michael Page's terms, and I would argue if some of their clauses are enforceable.

They've said that if they introduce someone to a client and they're not hired or decline a role, the client would still be liable for a fee after 18 months of introduction! An introduction could be deemed as just sending a CV, even if the client hasn't instructed the agency to work on a role, according to MP's terms the client would still have to pay a fee.

And 18 months is a very long time to have that ownership I'd say?

If that’s what the terms say and the client interviews on that basis they are deemed to be accepted.

This seems analogous to estate agents (who include get similar terms in their standard agreements). The courts are unwilling to enforce such clauses unless agents can show they have done a) enough work and b)when there are competing agencies that they were the ones who achieved a sale. Obviously this won’t definitely be the case with your line of work, the fact that this is a commercial setting alone would suggest a much stricter approach if you were to sue. but it’s not as simple as you had a term in the contract and getting the court to enforce it. You need to consider the cost of suing verses the money they owe (baring in mind especially that claims under a certain value are awarded damages only meaning that you won’t be able to claim back legal costs. I suggest you find a solicitor with experience in commercial litigation and seek their advice.