Journalist
Share this content
Treasury building
istock_HMTreasury_TonyBaggett

UK accounting firms still drawing furlough cash, HMRC data reveals

by

Some of accounting’s top names are still tapping the government’s coronavirus furlough scheme for help, according to new data released by the Treasury.

29th Jan 2021
Journalist
Share this content

Haines Watts, and UHY Hacker Young are the highest profile accounting firms still requiring support, however many others make the publicly available list as the pandemic continues to disrupt the business landscape.

Other accountancy and audit firms in the data include; Kreston Reeves; Price Bailey; Bishop Fleming; Carter Backer Winter; TaxAssist Accountants; Buzzacott; Duncan & Toplis; Mercer & Hole; Smith Cooper; SRLV; Thomas Wescott; Gerald Edelman; Ensors; Simmons Gainsford; Shipleys; Silver Levene; Dains, Beavis Morgan, along with several others.

More than 740,000 firms around the UK who made claims through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in December have had their details published as part of a transparency drive by Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s department.

However, payroll expert Kate Upcraft has raised questions about the 740,000 ‘employers’ touted in the list.

“It’s hard to infer from that number how many employers this relates to as an employer can have one scheme or multiple PAYE scheme because that’s their decision, not HMRC’s nor their agents,” she said.

Register for free to continue reading

It’s 100% free and provides unlimited access to the latest accounting news, advice and insight every day. As well as access to this exclusive article, you can:

View all AccountingWEB content
Comment on articles
Watch our digital shows and more

Access content now

Already have an account?

Replies (18)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By AndrewV12
29th Jan 2021 10:09

Extract above
‘A magnet for fraudsters’
The furlough scheme, which pays a percentage of an employee’s wages if they are unable to work because of a Covid-19 lockdown, generated controversy last year when it emerged many large and multinational corporates were using the scheme despite remaining profitable.

Never trust big business.

Thanks (0)
By k743snx
29th Jan 2021 10:21

So couldn't some bright spark see this coming when the scheme started?

Maybe all FTSE-indexed companies should automatically have been excluded from claiming - that would have helped.

Thanks (0)
Replying to k743snx:
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
29th Jan 2021 10:56

Why? Just because they are bigger doesn't mean they didn't need to furlough people or need the money to aid cash flow.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ian McTernan CTA:
By k743snx
29th Jan 2021 11:34

Fair comment - note my use of the word "maybe".

I do actually get a whiff of big-business bashing in all this. Is the author trying to imply something, I wonder?

Thanks (0)
Replying to k743snx:
RLI
By lionofludesch
29th Jan 2021 15:46

k743snx wrote:

So couldn't some bright spark see this coming when the scheme started?

Maybe all FTSE-indexed companies should automatically have been excluded from claiming - that would have helped.

All that would've happened is that there would've been massive redundancies.

Big Business PLC wouldn't have kept their staff on and shouldered the cost. Let's not forget that the target of the relief was to support the run-of-the-mill employees.

The assertion that companies of whatever size have claimed fraudulently does not invalidate the CJRS.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Echo761
29th Jan 2021 10:21

Is this posting of business names by HMRC not a breach of data protection? I guess they get round it by the line in the application (which you cannot get around) that you agree to being named... seems out of balance to the taxpayer.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Echo761:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Jan 2021 16:52

I presume you're just being flippant ... given that all the core principles of Data Protection (both under the original UK Act and the more recent GDPR) are entirely related to "personal data". So, whilst publishing a list of business names could fall foul of a whole host of other legislative areas, it won't trouble DP officers.

[Note: the "business names" published are whatever 'name' the employer used when setting up their PAYE scheme].

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
29th Jan 2021 10:57

I can almost guarantee that for reasons that should be very obvious indeed for any half decent accountant all the above accounting firms will show very healthy profits for this year thanks to the taxpayer.

Then again, if it was good enough for bankers back in 2008/09...

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
29th Jan 2021 10:58

Unless they weren't charging clients for the additional work or had a lot of clients who couldn't pay or had a lot of staff doing overtime to cover for those self isolating/on furlough.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
29th Jan 2021 11:02

This is no great surprise. Certain sectors are currently pretty much closed, so if, for example, you have a 'small retail' section within your firm it's likely that they don't have as much work to do and some staff may be furloughed.

Yes, there will have been some fraud, but that needs to be looked at in the wider context of what would have happened if the scheme had not been put in place so quickly.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Ian McTernan CTA:
avatar
By geoffmw1
29th Jan 2021 13:35

Surely if any accountant thinks that a client or some business they deal with has made a fraudulent claim an AML report would be required

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ollieacca
29th Jan 2021 12:22

I think what a lot of these headline pieces forget is that sometimes the furlough scheme is being used in the employees interest, for example where they have no childcare options. It would be unfair to expect businesses to pay wages of these people who can't work, but using the scheme the employer is contributing a small amount and hopefully back into their jobs longer term.

Thanks (1)
Morph
By kevinringer
29th Jan 2021 13:00

We've been busier than ever this year and had so much covid work to do, we needed this SA easement. But I guess it depends which sector the accountancy practice specialises in. If it's tourism, hospitality or leisure, clients won't have the money to pay the bill, so there won't be any work for the accountant.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By lukeoliver
29th Jan 2021 13:53

Whilst there will always be some who abuse the system, most try their best. There are also some employees who try to take advantage of the scheme as well but that does not get mentioned.

Employers and Payroll Bureaus have had a difficult and stressful task operating at times a complicated system. This system was largely put in place because the UC could not cope and it is the employees who are the main beneficiaries.

Perhaps the Government / HMRC could express some thanks to Employers rather than indicating they are all being watched carefully.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Barbara G
29th Jan 2021 17:56

It's not only accountants who work in accountancy businesses, there are other ancillary staff as well. If we're being asked to work from home we won't need an office cleaner, or the receptionist who files paperwork for example. So what do we do, make them redundant, or utilise the furlough scheme to retain their jobs until a time when we can re-open the offices again?

Thanks (5)
avatar
By AnnAccountant
29th Jan 2021 18:30

Anyone noticed that wait times on helplines has plummeted? They say "because of Covid", they have had to furlough half the call centre.

Just so happens that doing so saves the company a load of money. I bet if it cost them money, they'd find a way to keep the same number of phone lines open.

I bet customer service levels never return. After a year, we are conditioned to waiting an hour in a queue

Thanks (1)
My photo
By Matrix
30th Jan 2021 08:21

Of course the employee won’t have access to the amount claimed for them, this information is not submitted on a claim. There is just one number per CJRS claim.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Matrix:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Jan 2021 15:24

Possibly true where the claim is for fewer than 100 employees (I don't know because I only have larger clients) ... but the claim 'form' (which must be used when > 100) has a column for "Employee claim amount" that needs to be completed for each line (i.e. each employee).

Thanks (1)