Client runs a small cleaning business he is the sole Director; he has 3 employees and does alot of cleaning himself. He has furloughed 2 of his staff for April but one employee is still working. He says he did not do any cleaning work himself in April and wants to claim furlough for himself. I've said I don't think he can furlough himself because his business is still creating sales (even though his employee is doing the cleaning work). My view is that just arranging for his employee to do some work would exclude him from a furlough claim for himself. Am I being too harsh.
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
No, not being too harsh. Managing the employee is beyond his statutory duties as a director.
Sounds like he should furlough the 3rd employee and do the cleaning that person is doing, himself.
Sounds like he should furlough the 3rd employee and do the cleaning that person is doing, himself.
Spot on.
The alternative is to divert the phone to the employee and let him fix up his own schedule.
I have to say that the thread title is misleading here. My initial thoughts were that he would be grand to futlough himself.
You ask if you are being too harsh. No you are right and could save your client a lot of distress at a later date. We have to remind clients that HMRC will be looking into these claims at some point and will be able to identify companies that were continuing to trade as at the same time claiming that all employees were furloughed. With turnover dropping many honest clients are getting desperate for help but sadly there is no middle way.
CJRS is designed to avoid redundancies. If one employee is still working, then the sole director is not in danger of being made redundant (unless that employee then becomes the sole director).
IMO, he doesn't qualify for CJRS.
CJRS is designed to avoid redundancies.
Risk of redundancy is not a condition for a claim.