Self employment & Pimlico Plumbers court case ...

[David Prosser]

There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.

There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.

He worked there for nearly six years, was VAT registered and used his self employed status to right off a room at his house. I believe both parties new exactly what they were up to.

 

[David Prosser]

There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.

There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.

He worked there for nearly six years, was VAT registered and used his self employed status to right off a room at his house. I believe both parties new exactly what they were up to.

 

[Risteard]

You miss the point - he probably had no choice but to pretend that he was self-employed. Charlie Mullins probably forces his employees to break the law in this way. Of course the plumber will try to reduce his personal tax bill.

 

[David Prosser]

No, I have not missed the point, I simply don't believe this man was a victim or forced into anything (at no point in this report or subsequent reports does he suggest this either). He had a choice, six years is a long time to find other suitable employment or get legal advice on what he was doing while working at/for Pimlico. Why did he not do this, possibly because it suited him not to look into it too hard, of course this all changed when he got shafted. He should not of been treated the way he was after a heart attack and the shitty way Pimlico plumber go about there business is not a great advert for any tradesmen.

 

[Risteard]

No, I have not missed the point, I simply don't believe this man was a victim or forced into anything (at no point in this report or subsequent reports does he suggest this either). He had a choice, six years is a long time to find other suitable employment or get legal advice on what he was doing while working at/for Pimlico. Why did he not do this, possibly because it suited him not to look into it too hard, of course this all changed when he got shafted. He should not of been treated the way he was after a heart attack and the shitty way Pimlico plumber go about there business is not a great advert for any tradesmen.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's certainly a valid assumption to make that he didn't feel able to deal with it whilst he was employed by Pimlico for fear of losing his job. Once they sacked him he was then open to pursue it.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

He worked there for nearly six years, was VAT registered and used his self employed status to right off a room at his house. I believe both parties new exactly what they were up to.

Not sure whether you have missed the point or not?
However you have chosen two points as proof he was benefiting from being Self Employed which prove nothing at all.
His six figure earnings were such that he would have breached the threshold for compulsory VAT registration.
Yes he used his Self Employed status to claim for a room in his house. He was unable to use his PAYE status to claim, as he was Self Employed.
Of course he may not have legitimately been able to use his PAYE status to claim for the room as he would not have been Self Employed or VAT registered and may have not needed to use a room for his accounting.
You may have had a valid point if you had cited that he employed his wife as a secretary, except that again being PAYE he may not have needed to do any accounting from home and would not have needed a secretary.

 

[Wilko]

Sorry I haven't read all the details, but as a private contractor did he not carry his own health insurance?

 

[Risteard]

The whole point is that he wasn't an independent contractor - he was an employee of Pimlico.

 

[Octopus]

Wasn't this chap always breaking the rules of IR 35?

 

[Wilko]

The whole point is that he wasn't an independent contractor - he was an employee of Pimlico.

Understood, that's the outcome of the court case now. But in the first week of work for the company say? Does the ruling mean that he was always an employee or that he became one at some point during the 6 years? Just interesting

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Understood, that's the outcome of the court case now. But in the first week of work for the company say? Does the ruling mean that he was always an employee or that he became one at some point during the 6 years? Just interesting

I would imagine he would have been deemed as employed from day one.

 

[Wilko]

That will set the cat amongst the small flying creatures won't it ...

 

[telectrix]

That will set the cat amongst the small flying creatures won't it ...

what have bats got to do with anything?

 

[HandySparks]

what have bats got to do with anything?

My thoughts exactly. Pigeons, on the other hand are larger flying creatures, with a propensity for excessive crapping.