On 30 Oct, 17:10, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
wrote:
I am tied to an agency to sell a certain product. I have fallen
out with this agency big time, and they have terminated my
agreement, but before they did they suspended me in order to
"investigate" the situation. The terms of the contract state that
any termination period is 3 months. This they have adhered to, but
at the same time have maintained the suspension.

Are they paying you during your suspension period?


Sorry, i feel i should explain further, it is a mortgage network
where, when i have advised and sold a mortgage, I have to submit it
through them in order for compliance to take effect. The lender then
knows what my payment route is and pays the network accordingly, the
network then pay me minus a percentage.

Therefore i can only sell under the umberella of this network until
they release me, I have another network willing to take me on, but
they cant until my current network has officially released me.


The industry I am in, has a watchdog that holds a register of all
firms and individuals who have qualified as being able to sell
this product. This register states the individual and/or and the
agency they are tied to, and one can only be tied to a single
agency at any given time. Therefore, this particular agency
holding me to contract until Jan 2008 is preventing me from going
off to another agency.

Can you work with another agency in a non-sales capacity during this
time?

No, as it has to be on an advised basis and if i am suspension then i
cannot ever advise.



That would under normal circumstances be ok, but, and this is the
bit I am very angry with, they are maintaining the suspension, so
in effect completely preventing me from trading. They will not
concede to releasing me under any circumstances, which is going to
make me bankrupt and they know this.

How will it make you bankrupt? If they're not paying you and have told
you that there will be no job for you when you come back, I don't see
how they can say you are only suspended, not terminated.

Does the above make this part clearer?


Stu