Share this content

More free money - can this really be true?

Re- employing an employee who left on 31 October. Are they really entitled to furlough?

Didn't find your answer?

In a family company the daughter left employment on 31 October, when the furlough scheme ended.  Now the new CJRS scheme says she can be re-employed and the grant claimed for her furloughed time, which means she can be re-employed from 1 November and her salary (for doing nothing at all) reimbursed to the company.  She has a second income as a carer being paid to her for looking after her own child, which started when the regular carer wouldn't/couldn't work due to coronavirus.  She was of course furloughed, so was easily able to fit this work in.

Aside of any moral implications - have I missed something or can she really be re-employed and her salary reclaimed via the CJRS?

 

Replies (18)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By paul.benny
04th Nov 2020 14:03

That was true under the original scheme.
The guidance for the November scheme has not yet been published.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By NYB
04th Nov 2020 14:07

Yup. (as of today - maybe not tomorrow) Morals dont come into it we all no some one - if not many who are mis-using the system. I have two directors - retired husband and wife -30K each through the payroll for accounting purposes claiming maximum Furlough each month. They are in their late seventies. Quite often it is "family members" who are benefitting. And yet you see others falling through the net. Such is life.

Thanks (2)
Replying to NYB:
avatar
By meadowsaw227
05th Nov 2020 12:07

As long as they have been taking a £30k salary for years and paying the correct tax & nic on it and it was not just set up to take advantage of the furlough refunds then fine.
If not then they would receive a "Dear John" letter from me.

Thanks (0)
By SteveHa
04th Nov 2020 14:22

What will happen after this furlough ends?

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteveHa:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
04th Nov 2020 15:02

My guess
NO JOB BEING PROTECTED

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
By SteveHa
04th Nov 2020 15:39

That was the broad thrust of my question. I was hoping the OP may spot it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteveHa:
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
04th Nov 2020 17:42

Nay, employed on c£580 for Dec & Jan.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By raju m
06th Nov 2020 10:17

More new schemes financed from more borrowings and negative interest rates,

Thanks (0)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
04th Nov 2020 15:06

In the original scheme, one of the criteria was that the furlough is "due to Covid"

And not just to just not working there any more, or choosing not to work etc etc.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By NYB
04th Nov 2020 15:16

I have a fish and chip shop client. Can open all the time.His employee "Lad" told his employer he will not be coming in over Lockdown as he wants to be "part of it" - whatever that maybe and not work. AND when JSS comes in he wants to work 20% of the time only and have the government "pick up the rest". I actually shriekd at the client that the EMPLOYEE CANNOT DICTATE TERMS

Thanks (0)
Replying to NYB:
By coops456
08th Nov 2020 22:39

Yep, we've had a couple of those. We effectively told the client, "you are the boss, not them; get a grip on your staff!"

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jonharris999
04th Nov 2020 18:42

My beef with some of the replies above is:

Either the rules are the rules or they aren't.

If there are cases where the rules fall in individuals' favour in a way that feels inequitable, so be it.

HMRC have been quick enough to reject a number of very clear fair, just and equitable grounds on which people couldn't squeak through the rules even though if you pinned Rishi down and told him about their cases, he'd agree he meant them to be included.

So make yer minds up. It's entirely illogical to treat HMRC's free pass to reject equitable claims as fair, and yet appoint yourselves as guardians of the exchequer to prevent those who are entitled to benefits from getting them.

Thanks (1)
Replying to jonharris999:
By SteveHa
05th Nov 2020 08:43

It's all well and good sitting on a high horse like that, but look at the legislation:

"6.1 An employee is a qualifying employee if-
(a) the employee’s employer has made a CJRS claim in respect of the employee,
(b) paragraph 6.2 applies in relation to the employee, and
(c) paragraph 6.5 does not apply in relation to the employee."

"6.5 This paragraph applies in relation to an employee if the employee is on notice of termination of the employee’s employment with the employee’s employer on 31 January 2021."

hence, clearly, if they are going to lose their job at the end of it, then they fall outside of the legislative requirement.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteveHa:
avatar
By jonharris999
05th Nov 2020 08:55

Sure, so if she's on notice of termination, my high horse has no legs; and if she isn't, it has 8.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteveHa:
avatar
By Hut15
06th Nov 2020 11:53

I've just had a look at the legislation and it relates to the Job Retention Bonus, not the "furlough" scheme itself.

My understanding is you can claim CJRS funding even if you will be terminating the employment again, but you won't be able to claim the bonus for still having them in your employment on 31 January.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By meadowsaw227
05th Nov 2020 10:46

If she was P45`d , as in her job had gone I would not want to put her back onto the payroll - if client didn't like it tough, they can always find another accountant.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By roseorgan.fsbdial
05th Nov 2020 14:27

I like the high horse reference. My farrier told me this morning that he has heard of lots of seemingly decent people who have made claims but who have worked throughout. Do we have an obligation to report them?

Regarding my client. I do not feel comfortable about this but I just want to understand what the rules are and then follow them. The employer is an agent for taxis which mainly go to the airport and the docks. They are fully expecting to need the subject of the discussion when the work resumes. However the nature of the business is such that they have no expectation that business will pick up before March.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mature Student
06th Nov 2020 09:54

As an aside, I believe a large reason for CJRS/JSS/SEISS is because the DWP would not cope with the number of claimants otherwise. Hence the government is effectively getting employers to be a shadow DWP while the Treasury is still receiving PAYE and NIC (employer and employee) on the payments where applicable.

Thanks (0)
Share this content