When Recruitment Agencies Claim Fees for Doing Almost Nothing
The Assumption Most Employers Make
Most employers assume that if they pay a recruitment fee, it’s because a recruiter has genuinely added value to the hiring process.
Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case.
Recently, we experienced a situation that perfectly highlights one of the biggest frustrations businesses face when working with traditional percentage-fee recruitment agencies.
A candidate was submitted by MaxAd to one of our clients a few weeks ago for a live vacancy we were actively recruiting for. The client really liked the candidate progressed them to first and then second stage interview.
However, the client has just become aware that another “traditional” (i.e. percentage based) recruitment agency had apparently “already introduced” the same individual weeks earlier.
Naturally, this raised questions as the candidate himself had no idea this had even happened.
A Recruiter Who Never Actually Recruited
After speaking with him in detail, it became clear that the traditional agency had originally contacted him weeks earlier, prior to MaxAd working in the project, and left a voicemail regarding a “potential opportunity”. The candidate returned the call and was told the recruiter would call him back. They never did.
He chased them again a few days later. Again, he was promised a callback. Again, nothing happened.
Eventually, weeks later, the recruiter finally got back in touch, only to discover that the candidate had already been properly engaged by MaxAd, fully briefed on the role and business and had knowingly agreed for us to represent him for the position.
At that point, the recruiter immediately hung up the phone. Not exactly great candidate management.
Can Agencies Really Claim Fees for This?
Yet despite providing virtually no service whatsoever, there is every chance that agency may still attempt to claim a recruitment fee of several thousand pounds if the candidate is ultimately hired, simply by sending the CV to the hiring manager first.
Situations like this happen far more often than many employers realise.
Some recruiters operate on a “CV ownership” mentality where the goal becomes sending as many CVs as possible, as quickly as possible, in the hope of claiming ownership of a future placement. Normally on the back of highly aggressive terms that define an “introduction” as simply sending a CV, regardless of what engagement they’ve actually had with the job seeker.
Is it any wonder the recruitment industry suffers with an image problem?
Sending a CV Is Not Recruitment
The issue is that simply emailing a CV is not the same as properly recruiting someone.
A good recruiter should:
- Learn about the vacancy, the hiring organisation and the company culture
- Speak with the candidate properly
- Explain the opportunity in detail
- Gain explicit permission before representing them
- Understand motivations and suitability
- Manage expectations on both sides
- Support the process throughout
Without that, the recruiter has not really recruited anyone.
They’ve simply forwarded a document.
I have no issue with that “mail forwarding” as a business model if you’re charging a few hundred pounds, but not when the client is looking at a 15% fee of the successful job seeker’s starting salary.
The Hidden Risks for Employers
This kind of behaviour can create several major issues for hiring companies.
Potential Fee Disputes
Businesses can suddenly find themselves caught between two agencies arguing over “ownership” of a candidate, sometimes involving fees of £15,000 or more.
Awful Candidate Experience
From the candidate’s perspective, it reflects badly on the hiring company, even when the business itself has done nothing wrong.
Candidates often assume the employer has authorised or encouraged poor recruiter behaviour, which can damage employer brand and reputation.
Paying Huge Fees for Little or No Value
Most frustratingly from a commercial perspective, employers can end up paying large contingency recruitment fees to agencies that provided virtually no meaningful service.
- No candidate qualification.
- No relationship management.
- No screening.
- No advisory support.
- No recruitment process management.
Just a CV sent into an inbox.
Why Recruitment Should Be About Service, Not Ownership
Recruitment should be based on service, transparency and genuine value, not aggressive CV ownership tactics.
Rather than charging huge percentage fees for individual hires, we work closely with clients to:
- Properly position vacancies in the market
- Engage candidates professionally
- Conduct meaningful screening conversations
- Provide honest insight and expectation management
- Deliver curated, relevant shortlists
- Protect the candidate and client experience throughout
It’s for these reasons that many of the candidates we place ultimately become clients themselves when they need to recruit. Precisely because they have received a positive job seeker experience, something that is rare, particularly within an increasingly AI focussed rather than candidate / client driven market.
Importantly, our model also removes much of the financial incentive for the kinds of ownership disputes that can arise under traditional contingency recruitment, finding the right person and delivering a professional recruitment process for everyone involved.
Questions Every Employer Should Ask Their Recruitment Agency
If you’re using “traditional” percentage fee based contingency recruitment agencies, it’s worth asking a few simple questions:
- Has the recruiter actually spoken with the candidate?
- Does the candidate know they’ve been submitted?
- Has the recruiter properly briefed them on the role?
- Is the recruiter adding genuine value to the process?
- Or are they simply sending CVs in the hope of claiming ownership later?
Because good recruitment should never feel like a legal dispute waiting to happen.
And neither employers nor candidates should be paying the price for poor recruiter behaviour.
haviour.