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.

Representing Yourself in Employment Proceedings is a Recipe for Muddle

Those who choose to represent themselves in employment proceedings, without the benefit of legal advice, often have enormous difficulty in getting their real complaints across. That was certainly so in the case of a woman who claimed to have been so badly treated by her employer that she was forced to resign. The woman had been in her job for less than three months when she resigned. The fees her employer had paid to a recruitment agency when she was taken on – which came to £945 – were…

Age Discrimination, Redundancy and the Burden of Proof – Guideline Ruling

Where an older employee is treated less favourably than a younger one in a similar position, the burden shifts onto the employer to prove that age discrimination had no effect on its decision-making. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an administration manager who was made redundant at the age of 67. The man had worked for a car sales company for more than 20 years when he was selected for redundancy. He contended that his dismissal was pre-determined and motivated by…

Employer’s Hardline Anti-Corruption Policy Passes Legal Test

Many businesses, particularly those that deal with governmental authorities, sensibly have anti-corruption policies in place. One such policy came under close analysis in an employment case concerning a golfing trip provided to a public official. A senior employee of a software company was dismissed for gross misconduct after he authorised payment of the cost of the overseas trip taken by a senior official in a government agency. He subsequently launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings,…