Share this content

Furlough grant for redundancy notice period?

My client wants to make his employee (aged 76!) redundant.

Didn't find your answer?

If the employee is given notice of redundancy now, while he is furloughed, can my client claim furlough grant for the notice period? My research suggests that he cannot claim but I haven't found anything from HMRC to support this.  It seems that my client would be better to claim furlough and give the employee notice of redundancy in May.  At least that way he would get some work (assuming there is any to be done) for his money.  I think the scheme changed on 1 December which seems unfair so I am wondering if it may have changed yet again.

Replies (12)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By the_drookit_dug
04th Feb 2021 12:53

It seems you already know the answer (that you can't claim furlough for employees servicing notice of redundancy) but are trying to convince yourself that you can.

Thanks (0)
Replying to the_drookit_dug:
avatar
By roseorgan.fsbdial
04th Feb 2021 13:02

When you work on your own it is as well to check things that don't make sense!

Thanks (0)
Replying to roseorgan.fsbdial:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
04th Feb 2021 13:09

It makes perfect sense
Furlough is to protect viable jobs in employment

This employment is not viable so clearly needs no support from the honest tax payer

How long has employee been on furlough?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By roseorgan.fsbdial
04th Feb 2021 13:19

I am not a fan of the random payouts either and especially those claiming who do not need them but this paying of furlough for notice periods seems to have changed. It is not my place to make a moral judgement on behalf of the client, only to tell themn what is legally available.

Thanks (1)
A Putey FACA
By Arthur Putey
04th Feb 2021 13:39

Well if you are looking for HMRC guidance to support your seemingly correct understanding its here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-which-employees-you-can-put-on-furloug...

Which is why the employer might make a moral judgement to keep them on furlough as long as it lasts at no cost to them.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Arthur Putey:
avatar
By LukeS
04th Feb 2021 13:47

The more moral stance would not to be claiming money from the Government for a job which is definitely ending.

Thanks (0)
Replying to LukeS:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
04th Feb 2021 14:17

At a cost to ALL taxpayers

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By LukeS
04th Feb 2021 14:31

Oh well, let's just increase the cost a bit more then.

Mind you, I've seen people's lack of morals on other posts on here, what a good advert for the profession.

The sort of middle class Daily Mail readers who moan about benefit scroungers and asylum seekers claiming money too no doubt, but quite happy to scam the public purse when it suits them or their clients.

Thanks (0)
Replying to LukeS:
avatar
By the_drookit_dug
04th Feb 2021 14:39

.

Thanks (0)
Replying to LukeS:
A Putey FACA
By Arthur Putey
04th Feb 2021 17:52

I meant the perceived moral obligation on the part of an employer to do the right thing by their employee. And I don't think the OP has stated that the job is not viable, so it sounds like they just want to put the old codger out to grass. Maybe if it involves driving a school bus or brain surgery they could argue a case for compulsory retirement.

Thanks (0)
Routemaster image
By tom123
04th Feb 2021 14:38

Furlough and redundancy could co exist in earlier rounds.

Using furlough to support redundancy for employee A could have assisted the company in being able to continue to employ employee B, rather than losing both jobs.

Thanks (0)
Replying to tom123:
A Putey FACA
By Arthur Putey
04th Feb 2021 17:57

Indeed, and some cynical employers took the opportunity to do so before the original scheme ended/reduced the %.

Thanks (0)
Share this content