Recruitment fees - contract question - am i liable

[fellatthefirst]

Just before i either roll over or go to a solicitor i thought i would test the water on here.

The scenario is that i used a recruiter to hire someone. it didn't work out and we had to let them go after a few weeks. The terms my company works on with other recruiters is 12 week 100% rebate if it doesn't work out.

This recruiter wants to charge me on a sliding scale for the time the candidate was with us. They say we are bound by their terms which were attached to the email that the original CV was on. Now my question is this...

No where on the email did it say "terms attached" or "you are bound by these terms" or something similar. I haven't signed anything and i didn't actually notice the terms on the email.

Am i therefore bound by them or do i have a case? Has anyone been in this position before?

[Frimley111R]

I think you will have to pay as by accepting the candidate you have effectively accepted the terms and it is up to you to check terms, not for them to flag them all up in big letters.

[Zetec-S]

We're on a sliding scale here, so any rebate drops by 1/3 of the fee per month. Same in previous company, I assumed it was fairly standard for recruitment?

Trouble is all the useless fkers leave just after 3 months.

[PurpleMoonlight]

I assume you mean the attachment was with the email but you didn't read it as you weren't specifically directed to it.

If so I would say pay up too.

[fellatthefirst]

Yes the terms were attached. To me it just seems a bit mad that you can bind someone by terms you attach in an email but not notify them of the terms or have the terms signed. So i could send out terms to anyone and everyone i email saying if you respond to this email i own your house.

From a legal stand point it just seems a bit flimsy to me and would what they are saying really stand up in court?

[PurpleMoonlight]

fellatthefirst said:

Yes the terms were attached. To me it just seems a bit mad that you can bind someone by terms you attach in an email but not notify them of the terms or have the terms signed. So i could send out terms to anyone and everyone i email saying if you respond to this email i own your house.

From a legal stand point it just seems a bit flimsy to me and would what they are saying really stand up in court?

No you couldn't.

The recruitment agency is providing you with a service. You knew they would not be free.

Once you decided to employ the candidate your first question should have been what is the agency fee. You obviously made no enquiries on that whatsoever. Yet you blame them.

[anonymous-user]

fellatthefirst said:

Yes the terms were attached. To me it just seems a bit mad that you can bind someone by terms you attach in an email but not notify them of the terms or have the terms signed. So i could send out terms to anyone and everyone i email saying if you respond to this email i own your house.

From a legal stand point it just seems a bit flimsy to me and would what they are saying really stand up in court?

Of course the method of supplying you terms would stand up in court and, as long as the terms aren't stupid (like, top of my head, 'I now own your house') then they would stand up too.

It doesn't matter at all what terms you've agreed with other recruiters, why would it? This is a different company.

You have a responsibility to familiarise yourself with your supplier's terms of business and just saying 'no-one told me to read them' want wash and will make you look pretty foolish should you decide you'd like a judge to look at this.

[anonymous-user]

There terms are not unconscionable/extravagant, and your conversation with them has effectively been

Rec Firm: Hello mr client, would you like to engage our rec services to fill a role for you. Our terms are attached.

You: Of course we would, send us what you've got.

Rec firm: Here is the product of our service for you to interview & select & then pay us

You: Cool, [start interviews, complete interviews, appoint person, have remorse, fire person], hang on I've now bothered to read the T&C's for the contract we engaged in and as it didn't work out I want to change them retrospectively

Even though they are not signed they would would likely be enforced

Edit to add: I would suggest drafting your own terms that are sent to any new provider at the beginning, being clear that their own terms are not being accepted

[Doofus]

It's their job to put candidates in front of you, and it's your job to decide which one is best for you. They did their job, you didn't

They should be paid for their work, you shouldn't

Ts & Cs are generally 'deemed to have been read' once they have been presented. You can't use your failure to read them as a defence.

[cbmotorsport]

Yes, you'll have to pay. You engaged their services, it's hardly their fault that you didn't check upon what terms you did that.

Most recruitment companies will modify their terms rather than you go to someone else when you first engage them...just need to read them and ask if anything you're unhappy about can be changed.

[Sheepshanks]

Doofus said:

They should be paid for their work, you shouldn't

That's quite good!

Doofus said:

Ts & Cs are generally 'deemed to have been read' once they have been presented. You can't use your failure to read them as a defence.

This all sounds a bit vague - is this how recruitment is? I can't imagine the big companies I sell to would pay anything unless there was a proper contract or a purchase order in place.

[jammy-git]

But they've provided you with terms, you've accepted a client. How are they to know you haven't accepted their terms?

[malks222]

the recruitment company have provided you with a candidate ('offer') and you have engaged/employed them ('accepted') would look to me that there is a contract in place.

can I ask if you had discussed/ negotiated a fee with the agency before they supplied you with candidates?

the fact they are offering a sliding scale on the fee is pretty normal. having dealt with agencies in the past, my main questions have always been- whats the fee? what are the payment terms? what is the rebate if it doesn't work out (from both sides- candidate quits or being let go)

[Doofus]

Sheepshanks said:

This all sounds a bit vague - is this how recruitment is? I can't imagine the big companies I sell to would pay anything unless there was a proper contract or a purchase order in place.

This isn't specific to recruitment. If I send an invoice for a container load of hats to my customer and print my Ts & Cs on the back, it is valid for me to assume he's read them. He can't later claim he never got them, and he can't use his failure to read them as a defence. If he asked for them, and I never provided a copy, that's something else.

This is why so many online things make you scroll to the bottom of the Ts &Cs before letting you click "continue". We all know we don't read them, but they gave us every opportunity...

[anonymous-user]

How much £ is involved?

[Sheepshanks]

Doofus said:

This isn't specific to recruitment. If I send an invoice for a container load of hats to my customer and print my Ts & Cs on the back, it is valid for me to assume he's read them. He can't later claim he never got them, and he can't use his failure to read them as a defence. If he asked for them, and I never provided a copy, that's something else.

Well, he'd have sent you a PO for a load of hats first, surely? You wouldn't just send them on spec, which is what recruitment consultants appear to do.

[Doofus]

Whenever I've used recruitment consultants, they've had mesign a Letter of Engagement. Ts & Cs attached.

You only need to do that once, unless they change their terms, so the next time you call them, they can just send candidates.

[mondeoman]

So you read CVs, arranged interviews, held interviews, made offer, trained, then sacked, all without checking how much it was going to cost, but it’s someone else’s fault?
Golden.

[fellatthefirst]

No, when recruiters contact us (we never contact them) i tell them what terms we work with. i.e 15% fee and 12 weeks 100% rebate.

This particular recruiter contacted me out of the blue with a candidate cv attached. It all went from there really, the candidate looked good we interviewed him etc and ended up employing him.

I had told the recruiter what our terms were but now they are saying their terms were attached to the email with thee CV on so we are bound by those terms.

I think this may be a lesson learnt. In future i will have to get recruiters to sign something from us to confirm they accept OUR terms.

This post seems to of stirred a few people up! Maybe a few recruiters on here? Anyway i'm not saying i'm in the right, i'm just questioning it.

Thanks for all the advice so far.

[fellatthefirst]

Just to add as well, i have always signed terms with other recruiters i have successfully used in the past, which is again why i am questioning if simply terms attached to an email can stick.