NMW “Naming and Shaming”

Does anyone else find the language used concerning?

Didn't find your answer?

More of a grumble and statement than a question. I agree with the general thrust of naming businesses that wrongly avoid their obligations but the naming and shaming of NMW failings seems to set the bar way too low. HMRC, on their website, call these employers "rogue" where I'm sure most are not. They've probably made innocent mistakes and find themselves publicised for it. Contrast this against the average self assessment enquiry or CT enquiry that may well generate more in tax, penalties and interest but doesn't see the light of day in terms of publicity.

By way of example, a club from Wokingham find themselves named and shamed for underpaying 11 employees a total of £540.30, an average of under £50 per employee. It is only right that this employer is made aware of (and educated on) their failings and that the employees are rightly paid what is due to them but to call them rogue and publish their details for all to see, seems way over the top. 

If HMRC feel justified in publishing these details, the de minimis limit for publication needs to be much higher than the apparent £500 per employer and HMRC need to not use sensationalist language in their press release.

Replies (38)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By the_drookit_dug
03rd Jan 2021 14:38

Yes, the bar is way too low. Plus there should be a lot more discretion when amounts are low and underpayments are genuine oversights.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
03rd Jan 2021 14:51

I agree
It looks to all the world like the state, as represented by HMRC gloating.
The most offensive factor is deemed deductions, eg not buying 'uniform' black shoes, followed by agreed deductions by employees eg buying products from employer.
We had a client that we chose no longer to act for as they kept making decisions that were putting themselves at risk.
If the employer is shamed there is also fallout on all other professionals involved

Thanks (0)
the sea otter
By memyself-eye
03rd Jan 2021 15:42

It's easier and cheaper for the state to 'name and shame' than to properly investigate: Name and Shame along with it's sibling 'issue a penalty' is now the norm. It's a bit like reducing what were perfectly reasonable speed limits across the country and then 'fining' motorists for 'speeding'

Not that I condone speeding of course, officer - sir.

Thanks (3)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
03rd Jan 2021 16:27

Presumably setting up a name and shame site covering HMRC's actions (or inactions) is out of the question;

HMRC employee XXXX opened an enquiry with no understanding of case law.

HMRC's yyyy department took four months to reply to a letter.

HMRC's zzzz department needed three attempts to correct a client's self assessment return despite having the information within the return and two subsequent letters from the tapayer's agent.

Or, my most recent one, HMRC lost £30,000 (3x £10,000 we had paid to them) and despite repeated telephone calls if finally took a very long letter accompanied by photocopied bank statements and months of delay before they finally bothered managing to track down where they had allocated the monies.

Thanks (8)
Replying to DJKL:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Jan 2021 16:46

Sounds great.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
03rd Jan 2021 18:00

Site title?
HMRC R US

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
VAT
By Jason Croke
04th Jan 2021 07:43

Paul Crowley wrote:

Site title?
HMRC R US


There's already a regular blog on HMRC failings here http://hmrcisshite.blogspot.com/ but the idea of a name and shame website for HMRC delays, errors and outright abuses would be great.
Thanks (0)
Replying to Jason Croke:
A Putey FACA
By Arthur Putey
04th Jan 2021 15:20
Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Ginger Tom
04th Jan 2021 09:40

I suppose a more accurate name such as HMRC R F*****g idiots would be out of the question.

Thanks (1)
JCACE
By jcace
03rd Jan 2021 19:29

I'm sure the initial intention was to name and shame unscrupulous employers who wilfully underpaid their staff. However, that has now changed to naming any employer who falls foul of NMW legislation for whatever reason- ignorance, error, misinterpretation etc as well as deliberate acts.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JD
03rd Jan 2021 19:46

They do seem to by a highly aggressive lot, rather more interested in what penalties they can raise rather than protecting individuals in their jobs.

Thanks (1)
By SteveHa
04th Jan 2021 09:05

It's no different than the "tone of a dictator" adopted by Government generally, lately. We are slowly turning into N Korea.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rbw
04th Jan 2021 11:03

I agree the use of "rogue" for all the employers is wrong. But I think the language may well come from Ministers/SPADs rather than HMRC: the press releases come from BEIS (who have NMW policy & legislation). So I'd favour calling BEIS and their Ministers "rogue" every time they FU.

And FWIW the threshold was reviewed and increased only in 2020 when naming & shaming was resumed so I doubt they'll even look at it again for a while.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/naming-employers-who-fail-to-pay-mini...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By NYB
04th Jan 2021 11:18

And you can even get "named and shamed" if you have realised your error and put it right. Takes me back to an ex client - a small hairdresser who was named and shamed. I had a wry smile because she left me to go to someone "more proactive" was her words. She certainly got that!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Rgab1947
04th Jan 2021 13:13

I must be stupid.

I thought taxes and tax authorities had to keep confidentiality ?

What next, publicly publishing tax data of firms that HMRC believes did not pay the tax they allege is due.

Thanks (0)
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Jan 2021 13:23

There's a world of difference between publishing the names of folk who have been convicted of a tax offence and a firm who just missed an employees birthday and NMW increase.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By SteveHa
04th Jan 2021 15:03

lionofludesch wrote:

There's a world of difference between publishing the names of folk who have been convicted of a tax offence and a firm who just missed an employees birthday and NMW increase.

I'm not so sure that many of those named and shamed have been convicted of anything at all. Rather, allegations were made and upheld by HMRC. HMRC do not have the power of the courts.

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteveHa:
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Jan 2021 15:15

SteveHa wrote:

I'm not so sure that many of those named and shamed have been convicted of anything at all. Rather, allegations were made and upheld by HMRC. HMRC do not have the power of the courts.

Exactly my point.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By snickersinatwix
04th Jan 2021 14:20

Superdrug Stores PLC, Croydon CR0, failed to pay £15,228.57 to 2222 workers

that is £6.85 per worker on average. Whilst it should not go uncorrected, it is hardly the crime of the century.

Thanks (0)
Replying to snickersinatwix:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
04th Jan 2021 14:26

Admit it, you've rounded down for dramatic effect. It's £6.854.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Jan 2021 14:45

Admit it - you're rounded up for dramatic effect. It's £6.85354.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
04th Jan 2021 15:07

I tee them up, you head them home.

(I might have merged my sports metaphors there. I'm a rugby girl, not interested in... in whatever sports I may just have accidentally insulted. Sorry, chaps.)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Jan 2021 15:17

Rugby's something we have in common, then.

Maybe it's not shared between 2222 employees. Maybe is £15000+ each.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By snickersinatwix
04th Jan 2021 15:34

I don't think it is £15k each , because
Tesco stores Limited, Welwyn Hatfield AL7, failed to pay £5,096,946.13 to 78,199 workers

Thanks (0)
Replying to snickersinatwix:
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Jan 2021 15:46

snickersinatwix wrote:

I don't think it is £15k each , because
Tesco stores Limited, Welwyn Hatfield AL7, failed to pay £5,096,946.13 to 78,199 workers

They're very well paid at Tesco.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
04th Jan 2021 16:04

You mean the others may be well paid; the 78,199 that are on (or even below) NMW, not so much?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Jan 2021 16:24

Tax Dragon wrote:

You mean the others may be well paid; the 78,199 that are on (or even below) NMW, not so much?

Snickers underestimates my ability to be facetious.

It's still only £60-odd apiece on average - but on a huge scale.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
04th Jan 2021 16:45

Ability to be facetious? Something else we have in common.

lionofludesch wrote:

It's still only £60-odd apiece....

Now you really are rounding down. It's nearer £70. Probably more than a day's work for some of these guys and gals.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Ginger Tom
05th Jan 2021 09:49

Pedantic ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ginger Tom:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
05th Jan 2021 09:57

Factual.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ginger Tom:
By SteveHa
05th Jan 2021 12:28

Isn't pedantry the background to accountancy?

Thanks (1)
7om
By Tom 7000
04th Jan 2021 17:45

Havent you got any tax returns to do?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tom 7000:
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Jan 2021 17:59

No.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By psimonparsons
04th Jan 2021 19:37

HMRC don’t publish lists of NMW offenders. It’s published by BEIS who deal with government employment law.

Only those who were fined for breaches are named - they all had to pay penalties in addition to the underpayments. So maybe not so innocent.

Thanks (1)
Glenn Martin
By Glenn Martin
05th Jan 2021 14:56

I agree I think its largely unfair. For me you should be name and shamed if you are £5 per hour cash in hand, not giving pensions etc which I am sure goes on.

But the NMW cases that get published seem to be nit picking in the legislation and are just picking up on genuine errors and then hang out the business to try. Most seem to be around deductions from wages for uniforms and things like which when accounted for show the NMW was underpaid by 2p per hour as £50 was deducted incorrectly.

I am sure NMW is rife in takeaways etc but they rarely seem to put any resource into this as guess it takes some effort.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Arcadia
09th Jan 2021 16:37

The amounts may seem small and the transgression minor, but other businesses may be motivated to avoid making such 'mistakes' by putting proper systems in place to check birthdays (how hard can it be) and actually complying with the law. I am quite OK with naming and shaming in clear cut cases of non-compliance with the law like this. What I object to is the 'naming and shaming' of applicants for furlough grant who have a perfectly valid basis of claim, but HMRC are trying to contain the cost by implying that to claim is wrong unless you are actually at the doors of the food bank.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
14th Jun 2022 09:19

A bit more HMArsey than HMRC I think.

Thanks (0)