Share this content
39

Job Retention scheme - RTI sent after 19 March

Employee started 2 March, RTI submission made 28 March, do they qualify for job retention scheme?

Didn't find your answer?

An employee started 4 March, then was made redundant due to covid impact on business, their last working day was 18 March. Payroll for the month was processed end of March and RTI sent to HMRC. If re-hired, do they qualify for job retention scheme? On the one hand they were employed before 19 March, but the RTI was only sent after this date. Do they qualify for JRS or not?

Replies (39)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By paul.benny
16th Apr 2020 16:47

From the updated guidance:

"You can only claim for furloughed employees that were on your PAYE payroll on or before 19 March 2020 and which were notified to HMRC on an RTI submission on or before 19 March 2020."

That seems to rule out your employee, even if rehired.

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
avatar
By rememberscarborough
16th Apr 2020 17:29

Am I right that this would just affect march but if anyone furloughed on 1st April 2020 would be eligible for an April claim?

So much information bouncing around I beginning to think all this is going to turn up in an exam question for students in a couple of years....

Thanks (0)
Replying to rememberscarborough:
JCACE
By jcace
16th Apr 2020 17:40

The 19th of March is the critical date for notification of an employee in order for him or her to be eligible for the scheme. As long as the employee was reported through RTI prior to that date, the employee can be furloughed from the 1st of March, 1st of April or any other date up to the 10th of May (i.e. 3 weeks before the proposed end of the scheme).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ann12
17th Apr 2020 10:31

The new date of up to 19 March RTI has caused me to think -I have a client who re-hired an employee so that he could claim her as a furlough worker as per HMRC 1st update to the guidelines. Now this date has changed, does he continue to pay her and claim or does he stop and tell her to go to her new employer? Also what, is to stop her going to her new employer and getting paid as a furlough worker while still receiving money from her previous employer? Equally, I the same client had staff who started in March and the RTI was before 19 March - how do he know if their previous employer is already furloughing them? I read the update that if you have re-hired them you only keep them on to 19 March?

Thanks (0)
By TMK Accounts
16th Apr 2020 19:21

This is so annoying - why would anyone report a monthly paid employee with a start date at the beginning of a month until the usual end of month payroll?!!

Thanks (0)
Replying to TMK Accounts:
Routemaster image
By tom123
17th Apr 2020 08:15

I agree.

Thanks (0)
Replying to TMK Accounts:
avatar
By kevin503
17th Apr 2020 10:16

Agreed! It looks like it will help weekly and fornightly employees, but not monthly payroll runs. Any company using a bureau, or even processing their own payroll, will normally do it a the month end, not the 19th!

Thanks (0)
Replying to kevin503:
avatar
By ann12
17th Apr 2020 10:29

Martin Lewis covered this in his programme last night and has vowed to take it up with the treasury. He got them to extend the date to 19 March and he agrees this is unfair for monthly paid staff as even if they started prior to 19 March, they will not get anything. Some people want to express their point that it is easy to follow however, this is not the easiest news to deliver to staff, and, if getting confirmation from a site such as this helps, why is that a problem to some. Please be kind to others - it does not cost anything.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By happyface
16th Apr 2020 20:56

Can anyone advise what happens if RTI submission were made late for the previous months? Would 19/3/2020 still be used to determine whether the employees can be furloughed?

Thanks (0)
Replying to happyface:
JCACE
By jcace
16th Apr 2020 22:08

The CJRS Direction from the treasury requires that a return has to have been made on or before 19 March. The guidance explains as follows:
"You can only claim for furloughed employees that were on your PAYE payroll on or before 19 March 2020 and which were notified to HMRC on an RTI submission on or before 19 March 2020.This means an RTI submission notifying payment in respect of that employee to HMRC must have been made on or before 19 March 2020."

Thanks (0)
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
17th Apr 2020 07:01

Why are people finding this section hard?
Had an RTI been submitted before 19/3 with the employee on? Yes - move to the next step. No - e’ee is never eligible for CJRS.

Kevin503 - look at your dates. The first RTI containing t he employee was after 18/3, so “no”, they are never eligible.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mbee1
17th Apr 2020 08:24

But if someone started on 1 March why would you submit an RTI before the March payroll run, say at the end of the month? I wouldn't.

Thanks (2)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By Samantha20
17th Apr 2020 10:01

Exactly. It makes me wonder if the people writing the legislation know how most people run their payrolls.

They raised peoples' hopes yesterday and now payroll departments are going to have to explain why they didn't send an RTI return for them before 19/3. Employees aren't going to know that employers wouldn't send an RTI return until around pay day for monthly paid employees.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Samantha20:
avatar
By BryanS1958
20th Apr 2020 17:31

The employees don't care - the employer would have paid them a salary in the expectation of receiving a furlough grant. It will be the big, bad employer that suffers, not the employee.

The employer has up until date salary is paid in which to make an RTI submission and this will often be end of month. Most unfair on employers, but I guess the date was chosen to avoid abuse of the system.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Samantha20:
By petersaxton
06th Jun 2020 09:00

The government's priority seems to avoid "fraud".
Pity they don't consider previous years RTIs regarding annual payrolls.

Thanks (0)
Morph
By kevinringer
18th Apr 2020 10:19

I want to make you aware that 3 documents were published on GOV.UK 17/04/20 evening which may help you.

1. New guide with worked examples at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/work-out-80-of-your-employees-wages-to-claim.... This addresses holiday pay including bank holidays.
2. New step-by-step guide at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-job-retention-sch....
3. The employers guide has been updated (this is version 5) at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By fissure
20th Apr 2020 11:30

we were wondering then, if doing monthly payroll with sage (50) payroll, is there a way then to send an RTI re: a new employee, as soon as they start, rather than waiting for month end payroll/their first pay (in order to ensure they're eligible for any future furlough/time constrained grants?)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bhawk454
27th Apr 2020 13:45

We have a related issue caused by the 19th March RTI provision:

A new starter as of 3rd February was paid for the first time on 29th February. The P45 she provided was issued by a pension provider from whom she had received a lump sum payment. Because of the way in which HMRC taxes these lump sums, over £5000 was deducted from her £16000 pension payment. The employee successfully reclaimed the overpayment of tax using Form P50Z.

Basic PAYE tools requires that the employer enter the details from the starter's P45, which in this case would have been nonsensical. Many attempts were made prior to March 19th to call the Employers Helpline and Online Services Help desk for advice, but (presumably due to the sheer volume of calls being received) these attempts ended with the message 'We are unable to deal with your call right now. Please try again later'. We were aware that the February RTI submission was late as a result of this issue but were unconcerned since the cause of the omission would surely qualify as 'reasonable excuse'.

Finally on 25th March we managed to contact an HMRC adviser, who recommended adding the employee to Basic Tools as a 'New Starter without P45'. The RTI was then submitted on the same date.

The employee was furloughed as of last month on 80% of her salary. Morever, we have committed to paying her until May in the expectation of receiving reimbursement under the scheme. Now however, since the RTI provision was introduced, we are unable to claim for her.

Clearly in this instance there was a 'reasonable excuse' for the delay in producing the RTI submission. One would have thought there might be some kind of appeals process in these circumstances. I am awaiting a call back from HMRC, although I expect to be told that rules are rules and that nothing can be done about it.

The 19th March cut off for RTI seems poorly conceived at best, as it discriminates against monthly paid employees. The further unintended consequence to those who submitted RTI late for legitimate reasons just adds a further dimension to the frustration.

Thanks (0)
Replying to bhawk454:
avatar
By Wanderer
27th Apr 2020 13:59

bhawk454 wrote:

Finally on 25th March we managed to contact an HMRC adviser, who recommended adding the employee to Basic Tools as a 'New Starter without P45'. The RTI was then submitted on the same date.

Exactly what I would have done save I would have submitted the RTI on time.
Thanks (1)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By bhawk454
27th Apr 2020 23:29

Wanderer wrote:

Exactly what I would have done save I would have submitted the RTI on time.

Well then you and I probably have to agree to differ that to have taken such an action without authorisation from HMRC was the right thing to do. This is the equivalent of altering an employee's tax code, which is not permitted except when specifically mandated by HMRC. It's a bit of a moot point in the general scheme of things, though, since at the time of my attempts to get through to the Employers Helpline nobody could have predicted that 19th March would become a pivotal date. As far as I was concerned, the submission could have been submitted late (first time during the tax year, so no penalty) with nothing more required than to tick the box for 'Reasonable excuse'. Had I been aware of the implications re. eligibilty or otherwise under the scheme then yes of course I would have made an executive decision to make an on time submission regardless of whether it was correct. However, not being possessed of a crystal ball, I wasn't aware of any such implications.

Thanks (0)
Replying to bhawk454:
avatar
By Wanderer
28th Apr 2020 02:18

bhawk454 wrote:
<

Well then you and I probably have to agree to differ that to have taken such an action without authorisation from HMRC was the right thing to do.

Authorisation? From your description you have not got authorisation. What you've got is the opinion (presumably verbal?) of an HMRC representative, one who was sufficiently clued up to understand the consequences, suggesting a practical way to achieve the right result.
Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By bhawk454
28th Apr 2020 14:34

No, the 'authorisation'/'opinion' (delete as appropriate) was in writing, and was obtained via a webchat which was subsequently printed and saved. It's interesting that in a separate chat with the Online Services Helpdesk, they did not appear to know the right way to deal with this; instead they escalated the matter and wrote to me requesting that I send them my most recent Basic Tools back up so they could investigate further. As for the representative being 'sufficiently clued up to understand the consequences', she could not have been clued up because at the time of these enquiries there WERE NO consequences other than those ordinarily attaching to a late submission. The advice was delivered on 25th March, but the RTI provision was not introduced until 16th April..

Having obtained HMRC advice previously on a similar but unrelated matter I was told verbatim that advice/opinion delivered during a phone call or web chat should be construed as authorisation to change an employee's tax code.

I think you are just going to have to accept the reality that not everyone is as clever as you are, and frankly your attempts at points scoring are adding no value to the conversation. Regardless of what I should or should not have done at the time, the situation exists and what is important is to attempt to resolve it. To that end, I did receive the promised phone call this morning from an HMRC technician. She understood and was sympathetic to my position, and is referring the matter for further consideration.

Thanks (0)
Replying to bhawk454:
avatar
By bhawk454
28th Apr 2020 14:36

The adviser who contacted me today stated that she believed guidelines are 'being reviewed' due to the thousands of agitated phone calls they are receiving. They seem to be very much aware that the 19th March cut off is a huge issue.

Thanks (0)
Replying to bhawk454:
avatar
By bhawk454
28th Apr 2020 14:40

The adviser did also suggest that I proceed with the claim for other furloughed employees, with the provision that if a favourable decision is made regarding the new starter they will allow a second claim for the same period.

Thanks (0)
Replying to bhawk454:
avatar
By Wanderer
28th Apr 2020 14:43

bhawk454 wrote:

As for the representative being 'sufficiently clued up to understand the consequences', she could not have been clued up because at the time of these enquiries there WERE NO consequences other than those ordinarily attaching to a late submission.

Well of course there were consequences, the very consequences why you raised the issue in the first place! Nothing to do with CJRS. Don't jump to conclusions.
bhawk454 wrote:

I think you are just going to have to accept the reality that not everyone is as clever as you are, and frankly your attempts at points scoring are adding no value to the conversation.

Very patronising and again you've jumped to conclusions.

bhawk454
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2011
Recognition Likes: 0 Thanks: 0

Wanderer
Member Since: 12th Jul 2012
Recognition Likes: 21 Thanks: 1522

Seems like I'm more willing to help out and appreciated on here than you and others don't think I'm just here for point scoring.

Thanks (1)
Replying to bhawk454:
avatar
By Sheepy306
27th Apr 2020 14:02

I have a vaguely similar issue with 1 client company where an RTI submission wasn't able to be submitted on time, beyond our control, they therefore missed the 19th March cut-off by a few days.
I spoke with HMRC regarding this on Monday 20th April when the portal went live, they escalated the technical issue, promised a call back within 48 hours. I have just received a phone call now, 7 days later, informing me that they didn't realise just how many technical issues they'd be dealing with and that someone "should call me later this week". Her job was simple to apologise to us, poor lady.

So, there's still some hope that HMRC will deal with any exceptional cases, however don't expect it to be resolved quickly, and if your client is reliant upon that money then they could be in a spot of short-term bother.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Sheepy306:
avatar
By bhawk454
27th Apr 2020 23:51

Yes, they are completely snowed under. I chatted with them on Thursday and was told that a technical representative would call me within 48 hours. I chased it up today and was told the time frame for response had been extended to 72 hours.

The difficulty, I think, is that the Tech team for the scheme are not conversant with the ins and outs of RTI. I doubt they will have the authority to make decisions in these situations. To my (apparently simple) mind, consideration should be given to allowing claims where the failure to submit RTI is due to a demonstrable 'Reasonable excuse'. If the reasonable excuse attaches to failure by HMRC to answer their phones or respond within a timescale indicated by them, then I honestly think there should be grounds for exemption. I'm not knocking HMRC in any way.. they are quite clearly overwhelmed, but in my case it probably took me a total of more than five hours before I could actually speak to someone.. and that someone unfortunately wasn't able to help, so referred me back to another department.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Cazbot
19th May 2020 15:40

Hi, my husband started a job on the 16th March, was paid between 16.3.20 and 30.3.20. He was furloughed / shielded due to underlying health conditions. He got his pay end of April and it was £0.00 when he challenged payroll, they said the RTI wasn't submitted by 19.3.20 and he will have to go on statutory sick pay (even though he is not ill). He hasn't received any SSP to date and has chased his line manager, who said they are not obliged to pay him anything. Please can you advise where he stands with this?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cazbot:
.
By Cheshire
19th May 2020 16:00

Duplicate

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cazbot:
.
By Cheshire
19th May 2020 15:56

They are confusing pay with furlough, plus there are some HR issues in there.

Speak to ACAS, this is a legal issue.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Cheshire:
avatar
By Cazbot
19th May 2020 16:10

How is this a duplicate?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cazbot:
.
By Cheshire
19th May 2020 16:17

I just posted my response twice thats all! So edited one out, dont worry about it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cazbot:
avatar
By Wanderer
19th May 2020 16:09

As Cheshire has said, there are two separate issues here:-

1. The employment contract, as amended by the terms of furloughing, between the employer and employee.
2. The reclaim of monies by the employer under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

2. is dependent on 1. but 1. isn't dependent on 2. (unless specifically written into 1.)

You have legal issues rather than accountancy issues.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By ikky1984
06th Jun 2020 03:37

I have a serious issue and despite my desperate attempts of finding an answer other than the obvious "not eligable" cannot resolve.

I'm a director and a shareholder of a Ltd company of which employs 8 members of staff. I have an accountant who does my company accounts including payroll. We inform them the staff working hours on last friday of every month and they produce and e-mail over their payslips. We then pay employees monthly salaries in accordance with the figure on their payslip from our business bank account to their personal bank account. All members of staff have been employed for at least a year and they procedure has always been the same.

It sounds pretty normal right? However, I've just found out that the accountant had not been submitting the RTI since we got on board with them because a member of staff (a part timer, with no authority) has told them NOT to!

I'm frustrated beyond belief. I requested all to be submitted and probably will receive a fine. Can anyone advise me what are my options for a claim under professional negligence and also if there is ANY chance that such circumstances may be an exception to the 19th March rule.

Thanks (0)
Replying to ikky1984:
My photo
By Matrix
06th Jun 2020 07:13

You will need to check your contract, calculate your loss and make a claim to the accountant if you think they are responsible. Although no reasonable person could have predicted the virus or the importance of the 19 March cut off date.

However why has it taken you 10 weeks to realise this?

Thanks (0)
Replying to ikky1984:
By petersaxton
06th Jun 2020 09:08

the accountant seems at fault but so does the member of staff
how would the accountant know the member of staff's position?
I would have objected if they, or even you, had told me not to submit RTIs

Thanks (0)
Replying to ikky1984:
Morph
By kevinringer
08th Jun 2020 13:15

Calculate your loss bearing in mind it is ongoing until your staff return from furlough. Offer to settle out of court with the accountant and if they refuse sue them. Find another accountant.

Thanks (0)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Wanderer
08th Jun 2020 13:46

Kevin
There's been no CJRS loss to ikky, we've all tried to give them advice but much of it is ignored, see here:-
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/accountant-did-not-submit-rt...

Thanks (2)
Replying to Wanderer:
Morph
By kevinringer
08th Jun 2020 13:58

Thanks Wanderer

Thanks (0)
Share this content

Related posts