The situation: I received an e-mail a week or so ago from a headhunter. He flagged up an opportunity that suits me. I said thanks for thinking of me, looks interesting, tell me more, which he did (without disclosing the name of the client).It wasn't difficult to work out who the client was, and the next day I found the same job advertised directly on the firm's website. The headhunter himself e-mailed me again about a week later with more details, including the name of the company.I first became aware of the position because the headhunter alerted me to it, but I never sent him my CV. For various reasons, I would prefer to apply directly as I don't believe that it would be advantageous to apply via the headhunter for this particular position.Bad form, or not? Would be interested in the view of Mars A Day and other headhunters on this forum.

Most recruiters will do anything to shaft you so why should you care about them? I had a verbal offer that I counted on and then it got rescinded just because the company found a better candidate. The recruiter pretended for a couple of weeks that he was trying to sort out the details with the employer and then just told me they found somebody else. If I were you I would just do whatever it takes to get the job. There are thousands of recruiters out there. What one of them thinks about you doesn't matter.

Polish Plumber's experience sounds very unusual - and I sincerely hope the miscreant responsible is not working in recruitment anymore. Wotsit - a familiar dilemma for many posters on this forum I suspect. Depending on the size of the client organisation you may find the HH is able to push you through the traffic, but this does depend on their relationship with the client. These days the art of managing HH and recruiter relationships for major MCs has become more of a science - less dark arts more about KPIs and showing/adding value for money. I won't advocate always going through a HH - if you think you would be better off applying direct then do so; but often the HH (where they have a real and significant relationship with the client) is able to both promote you client side, pushing you ahead of the large pools of applications they will inevitably receive, and also give you a much more complete and descriptive picture of the firm, far more than you can gain from a job description or website. At the end of the day the HH works for the client organisation not the candidate however, so they will be representing the best interest of their client - so having that early 'approval' for the role from the HH can carry some weight with the client firm.As for 'bad form' this will depend on whether the HH becomes aware of it and how they react to it. Personally I only take offence where I encounter an individual who does this repeatedly - in which case I will -and have - blacklisted them for my purposes and wont consider them no matter how suitable for a role. But that is rather extreme, and I do that very rarely. Just like everyone else HHs need to earn a living. I suggest why not repay the HH in kind with a couple of referrals for other roles on their books, maybe a hiring introduction, or suchlike? A goodwill gesture if you like.

Are you not a more attractive prospect for an employer if you come direct as they would avoid the HH fees? Might this give an advantage when negotiating salary? Genuine question - don't know the ins and outs of it.

To be honest, from a practice perspective, the HH fee is pretty small-fry in the scheme of things. If I'm hiring a £120k guy, the fee will be in the region of £25k with the SA's we have in place and that consultant will bring in a couple of million in his or her first year so it fades in significant.I like candidates from agencies, makes my life easier and the whole transaction just goes better.Having said that, it depends on the agency of course because I do get some ar3eholes who bs me and the candidates.wotsit, will you share the name of the agency?

Re Polish Plumber: in my experience it is entirely possible that the recruiter wasn’t shafting you, but was being shafted by his client: it’s more than likely the other candidate wasn’t through him.Re the Wotsit dilemma: certainly bad form. Do as you would be done by etc. if you get the job the recruiter will find out and will blacklist you: big deal you might think but who knows what great job in future might not come your way? Or perhaps the recruiter might seek to be vindictive (PP’s analysis that agents are scum certainly applies some of the time) at some stage in the future and somehow scupper your chances somewhere? Or perhaps with this job: if he does have a good relationship with the employer he might be tempted to tell them what you have done which should put doubts in their mind if they are strong on ethics etc.The only justification for doing as you suggest is if the nature of your interaction left you very underwhelmed and doubtful of their competence or that they are indeed mandated by the employer to represent them. If your perception is that the recruiter knows his client, knows his brief and is clearly genuinely working with them then go via him.

A belated thanks to you all for your thoughtful replies. For the record, in this particular case I discussed my position honestly with the headhunter, and ended up applying through him because (a) his firm has been retained to fill this position, and (b) he convinced me that he has a good relationship with the client and can provide insight into the individuals and issues driving the hiring process. To his credit, he put no pressure on me to use him and made it clear that he wouldn't hold it against me if I applied directly.I've since come to the conclusion that I'm probably not going to get this particular role because I suspect they're looking for specific technical skills that I don't have. That's probably a bigger consideration than whether or not I'm coming through a headhunter!