HMRC are Clawing Back Furlough Payments Made in Error

It will come as no surprise to hear that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is making stern efforts to claw back sums paid in error under the COVID-19 furlough scheme. As one case showed, however, that process has left some reputable and entirely honest employers caught between a rock and a hard…

Aug 01, 2022

The case concerned two workers who started employment with a furniture company in late February 2020. Because they were taken on so late in the month, they were not paid for the first time until 26 March 2020, three days after the first lockdown came into force. They were placed on furlough.

HMRC took the view that the company was not entitled to furlough them and demanded that it repay over £20,000 it had received under the furlough scheme. The case was one of the first appeals in relation to the recovery of furlough payments made to employers during the worst days of the pandemic.

Ruling on the company’s challenge to the demand, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) noted that conditions attached to the furlough scheme were crystal clear. In order for payments made to an employee to qualify under the scheme, their earnings were required to be declared to HMRC via its real-time online platform no later than 19 March 2020. In the case of the two workers, that was not done until 25 March 2020.

Expressing considerable sympathy for the company, the FTT noted that there was no dispute that the workers were taken on prior to lockdown and that they would have qualified under the scheme had they been paid for the first time in February 2020. When the pandemic hit, the company had to close down overnight and, notwithstanding the furlough scheme, it was constrained to make 70 of its staff redundant in order to survive.

The company said that its conduct was in line with the spirit of the furlough scheme and that it would be unfair to exclude it on a technicality. The FTT, however, found that it had no jurisdiction to consider such arguments. Its duty was to adjudicate on the law and the rules governing eligibility for the furlough scheme represented a clear bright line. With HMRC’s consent, the demand was reduced from £22,018 to £20,504. The company’s appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Providing Your Services Via a Company May Not Always Be a Good Idea

There can be advantages, both in terms of flexibility and tax efficiency, in providing your services via a private company. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, such arrangements may also have the less desirable effect of stripping you of any employment rights you might otherwise have had. A nurse who worked part time at a care home launched ET proceedings against its owner, alleging unfair constructive dismissal and that she had been subjected to racial discrimination and…

Allergy Rules Should Be Tightened for Restaurants, Says FSA

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is urging the government to make it compulsory for restaurants to print allergy information on menus, in a bid to better inform consumers and limit the risk of extreme allergic reactions. There is currently no legal requirement for businesses to make allergens known to customers in print, although FSA guidance recommends they do this. In an effort to mobilise the hospitality sector into listing allergens on menus, the FSA now wants written information to be a…

Employment Tribunal Orders Unfairly Dismissed Railwayman’s Reinstatement

A finding of unfair dismissal will, in the vast majority of cases, straightforwardly result in an award of compensation. As one case showed, however, money is not always enough to make up for the destruction of a career and, in such cases, Employment Tribunals (ETs) also have the power to order reinstatement. The case concerned a veteran railwayman who joined a rail infrastructure company as an apprentice and worked his way up to the position of team leader. Given the risks involved in such…