A recent High Court case highlighted an issue which could put private companies with sole directors at risk of not being able to make decisions lawfully.

What usually happens

By Ellen Roberts (Associate, Property and Secured Lending Team)

When a company is incorporated it must adopt articles of association which are a set of rules that bind company officers in how the company is managed. Companies incorporated on or after 1 October 2009 automatically adopt the Model Articles (unless that are modified, amended or excluded).

In real estate finance transactions, a lender will always request board minutes and resolutions being provided confirming that the company has complied with its articles, can legally enter into the security documents and that the director/s are authorised to proceed with the transaction.  Solicitors often are also asked to confirm that the company they are acting for has these powers.

What has changed

The case of Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing (which related to a director dispute) showed that for sole director companies there is an inconsistency within the Model Articles.

Article 7(2) permits a sole director to make decisions for the company alone provided that the articles have not been amended requiring more than one director. The Model Articles on their own do not stipulate a minimum number of directors, however article 11(2) states that a quorum for a meeting of directors (where resolutions are passed) shall not be less than 2 directors in attendance (unless a different quorum has been set).

The judge in this case concluded that despite many years of assumptions by the legal profession, article 7(2) does not override article 11(2). Therefore, the company in this case, which was a sole director company, did not have the legal power to enter into legal transactions.

What should you do?

While we wait to see the full impact of the judgements of this case, in real estate finance transactions we are already seeing many lenders react to this case. Lenders are requesting that sole director companies which have adopted the Model Articles either appoint a second director (to fulfil the quorum required in article 11(2)) or to amend the article 11(2) to allow the quorum to be one director.

The new interpretation of the Model Articles will affect many sole director companies and we advise such companies to consider its position and where necessary either appoint a second director or amend the Model Articles. Our Corporate Team can advise on the appropriate course of action for your particular transaction.   We can also arrange to the amend the articles if required.

Please contact Ellen Roberts if you would like any further information either by email or on 0204 505 8080.


A Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is a legal document that lets you appoint people to help you make decisions or make decisions on your behalf.

The people you appoint to help you are referred to as your ‘Attorneys’. An Attorney can be any person aged over 18. They do not have to live in the UK or be a British Citizen. You may wish to appoint a family member or friend, or you can appoint a professional such as an Accountant or Solicitor to act on your behalf.

“You can only create an LPA whilst you have capacity.”

You can only create an LPA whilst you have capacity.  If you lose capacity and someone needs to manage your affairs, they will need to apply the to the Court of Protection for a Deputyship Order.

LPAs have to be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian before they can be used. Once everything is in place you can have peace of mind that you have appointed someone to champion your best interests when you are unable to do so, whether it is caused by illness, old age, or an accident.

Types of LPA

There are several types of LPAs:

  • Property and Financial Affairs
  • Health and Welfare
  • Business LPA

Property and Financial Affairs LPA

A Property and Financial Affairs LPA gives your Attorney(s) the power to manage your property and finances in the same way they could manage their own. For example, they could sell your property, open close and operate your bank accounts, deal with the sale of any other investments and manage any pensions, benefits or allowances that you receive.

Property and Financial Affairs LPA have proved themselves as a vital tool where joint bank accounts are involved. For example, if a husband and wife have a joint account and one spouse loses capacity, then the spouse with capacity will not be able to access or make decisions regarding the joint account without a Property and Financial LPA.

“Property & Financial Affairs LPAs are useful for joint bank accounts”

If you run a business, then it is possible to have two separate Property and Financial Affairs LPAs. One can be dedicated to your personal affairs, and the other dedicated to business affairs. For more information, please see Business Lasting Powers of Attorney below.

Health and Welfare LPA

A Health and Welfare LPA allows you to appoint Attorneys to make decisions on your behalf regarding your personal health and welfare. These decisions can only be made when you lack capacity to make these decisions for yourself, for example if you are unconscious or because of a condition such as dementia.

You can grant your Attorneys the power to make decisions regarding life sustaining treatment and other significant decisions such as the type of medical treatment and health care you could receive and making decisions about care homes. It is important to know that you can include instructions and guidance to your Attorney about how they should make decisions.

Business LPA

Business LPAs are a form of Property and Financial Affairs LPA which only takes effect over your business affairs.

If you had a Property and Financial Affairs LPA in place, but not a Business LPA in place, it could mean the persons you have appointed under your Property and Financial Affairs LPA are able to make these corporate decisions on your behalf. The Attorneys appointed under the Property and Financial Affairs LPA may have no knowledge of your business, and ultimately may not be the best persons to be managing such affairs.

A Business Lasting Power of Attorney allows you to appoint the best people to administer your commercial affairs when you are unable to. These are often people who have a good working knowledge of your business affairs.

The Attorneys appointed under your Business LPA will be able to sign cheques and other important documentation on your behalf. This can be particularly useful if you become unwell, seriously injured or become mentally incapable.

Appointing Attorneys

As previously mentioned, you will need to appoint people to act as your ‘Attorney(s)’. They must be over 18 and must not have been declared bankrupt. When appointing someone to act, some things to think about include about how well you know them and if you trust them to make decisions in your best interests.

You can appoint a minimum of one person to act as your Attorney. In practice, most people appoint two or three at most, but you can appoint more than this. You can also appoint replacement Attorneys. Your replacement Attorneys will step in if your initial Attorneys are no longer able to act.

One you have chosen who should act as your Attorney, you can stipulate how they can act and how they should make decisions. You can also include guidance to your Attorneys to aid them in the event they need to make any decisions. For example, you can instruct your Attorneys to act ‘jointly and severally’. This means that your Attorneys could act together or apart when making decisions. Alternatively, you could appoint them to act jointly only, meaning that all Attorneys have to make decisions together.

There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to appointing and instructing your Attorneys. There are individual advantages and disadvantages in doing so, and it is best practice to obtain legal advice before making any decisions.


As well as legal fees, there is a registration fee payable to the Office of the Public Guardian. This fee is £82 per document to be registered. If a Lasting Power of Attorney is not registered, it cannot be used by your Attorneys.

If you have any questions about Lasting Powers of Attorney or if you would like help with any estate planning, please contact either Kerry Blackhurst (Kerry@bbslaw.co.uk) or Carolyn Watson (carolyn@bbslaw.co.uk) in the BBS Private Client Team.

In our Spring Newsletter we predicted a surge in Coronavirus related (Employment Tribunal) cases linked to health and safety concerns and general unfair dismissal.

Two cases have recently been reported in the Employment Tribunal dealing with what we expect to be increasingly common issues, as Covid cases hit the Courts.

Refusal to wear a facemask

In Kubilius v. Kent Foods Limited, the a Claimant, a lorry driver, was dismissed after refusing to wear a facemask at a client’s site.

This happened all the way back in May 2020, when the Government Guidance was that wearing a facemask was optional. The Respondent’s client however, Tate and Lyle, had a mandatory requirement for all visitors at their site to wear a facemask.

The Claimant refused to comply with repeated requests from the client to wear a facemask and was subsequently banned from attending their premises.

Kent Foods then undertook a disciplinary process, throughout which the Claimant continued to show a lack of remorse for his actions.

The Respondent concluded that they had no trust that the Claimant would not act in the same way in the future and that this could undermine their relationships with clients, as had happened with Tate and Lyle. The Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.

The Employment Tribunal held that whilst another employer may have reached a different conclusion, the decision to dismiss was in the band of reasonable responses and the dismissal was therefore a fair one. The Employment Tribunal also noted the difficulty that the Respondent would face given that the Claimant had been banned from the client’s site.

Refusing to attend work

In Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Limited the Claimant refused to attend work “until lockdown restrictions had been eased”. This was on the premise that he was concerned that if caught Coronavirus at work it could place his vulnerable children at risk.

The Claimant did not have 2-years service, so in his claim he had to establish:

  • that he had a “reasonable belief” that his workplace posed a serious and imminent threat to him and others; and
  • that he was dismissed for exercising his right to leave the workplace.

The Tribunal did not agree with the Claimant. Importantly, the Claimant did not provide any evidence to the Employment Tribunal to support his belief that the workplace placed him or others in imminent danger. In fact, the Claimant made no mention of any specific threats in the workplace to his Manager, and he accepted that Covid safe measures, that complied with the Government Guidance as it was at the time, were in place.

The Claimant also accepted that he drove a friend to hospital during a time when he had been told to self-isolate, and that he spent some time working in a pub during the pandemic.  These actions were not consistent with perceiving a serious and imminent threat in the workplace.

The Employment Tribunal concluded that on the information that was publicly available at the time (May 2020) the Claimant did not have a reasonable belief that his workplace posed a serious and imminent threat. His case therefore failed.

It is important to add that if the Claimant had 2 years’ service he probably would have won his case because the Respondent did not follow a fair process.


Both of these claims are from the Employment Tribunal and will not be binding authorities for future cases. They are also very fact sensitive, so whilst they give an indication as to how Employment Tribunals may interpret comparable cases, they should be treated with caution and we encourage our clients to contact us for advice if they are faced with any similar situations.

We offer a variety of services to our clients, including helplines, insurance backed products for Employment Tribunal claims and other fixed fee services.   If you would like to discuss how we can help you and your business deal with Employment Law matters, please contact either Paul StedmanVicky BeattieNeal Mellor or Sarah O’Brien on 0161 832 2500.

Welcome to the first in our new series of quarterly newsletters, where we focus on new developments and hot topics in Employment Law.


In this issue, which marks the anniversary of the first lockdown, we look back and forward at the impact of the pandemic on employers, as well as updating you on what else has been happening in the world of employment law over the last 12 months.

It goes without saying that Coronavirus has had an enormous impact on businesses, the people they employ and how work is done.

We look here at where we are now and what businesses should be doing and considering as restrictions ease and workplaces re-open.

The Furlough Scheme

The furlough scheme has been extended all the way to 30 September 2021.  After various tweaks since its first inception, these are the key elements of the scheme in its current form:

  • The Government will contribute 80% to any workers’ salary, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month
  • Employers must contribute NICs and employer pension contributions to the furlough pay
  • To be eligible, the worker must have been on payroll between 20 March and 30 October 2020
  • Employers can still use flexible furlough, splitting a workers’ time between furlough leave and working time
  • The furlough grant can no longer be used for notice pay

Importantly, the grant is still only available where Coronavirus is affecting business operations. It cannot be used for non-Covid related reasons such as under-performance or unrelated sickness absence.

Working from home

Who would have thought 12 months ago that multi-day Employment Tribunals could be run from Barristers’ bedrooms and solicitors’ sofas?  From experience, we can tell you that they can, and they have worked incredibly well!

One question we have been asked is whether employers will be able to require staff to return to the office full time when the restrictions ease?  As a general rule, it is up to employers to determine where their staff carry out work.   However, we expect that employers will receive more flexible working requests from workers who can now show that they can work effectively from home. Employers may find it increasingly difficult to reject requests for flexible working. Unreasonably refusing requests can lead to claims of indirect sex discrimination.   There may also be some staff whose disability makes physically attending work every day difficult, so employers may need consider offering work from home as a reasonable adjustment.

Testing and vaccinations

Can employers compel staff to take Covid tests at work, or to be vaccinated as a pre-cursor to returning to work?   Only in very limited circumstances.

As well as various data protection issues, there may be many health or religious reasons why staff refuse to take tests or be vaccinated.   Making tests or vaccinations compulsory could lead to claims of discrimination, where the employer would need to show that the policy is justified.   It is hard to envisage many circumstances where it would be justified (in legal terms), save for cases where, for example, travel is a key part of the role and the individual cannot travel without having been vaccinated, or in certain care settings.  Whilst this might surprise some employers, it is worth noting that not even the NHS is making testing or vaccinations compulsory for its staff.

In order to encourage workplace vaccinations, the government is making testing kits available for free for companies with over 50 employees until 30 June 2021.  Businesses must register on the here by 12 April 2021 to take advantage.

Positive tests and self-isolation

Most employers will doubtless face situations where staff are required to isolate either because they have tested positive or because they have been told that they have to self-isolate by the Test and Trace system.

In these cases, if the worker can work from home, then you can ask them to work from home whilst they are isolating.   If they cannot work from home, they may be entitled to:

  • Statutory or company sick pay
  • Employment support allowance
  • Universal credit
  • A one-off isolation payment, payable by the government


As of 1 April Public Health England will no longer advise people to shield.  This means that workers will no longer be entitled to statutory sick pay if they do not attend work due to shielding.  Like everyone else, those who have been advised to shield previously, should either return to work or work from home, where possible.

Returning from red-list countries

Some employees may have pre-booked holidays to ‘red-list’ countries which will require them to quarantine on their return.   Others may book trips to these countries knowing that they will need to quarantine when they get back.

If the employee can work whilst in quarantine, then employers can allow the individual to ‘work from quarantine’.   Where this is not possible however, what pay is the employee entitled to?  Assuming that they are not ill, then the employee may not be entitled to any pay whatsoever.

In order to minimise the potential disruption caused in these circumstances, it will be wise for employers to issue a notice to staff to advise them that they will not be entitled to any pay if they need to quarantine and cannot work after returning from a red-list country.

Top tips for return

Communicate!   Many employees will have been away from the workplace for over a year by the time things get back to some kind of normal, and some will be nervous about returning:

  • Carry out risk assessments of the workplace
  • Tell staff what Covid related safety measures are being put in place
  • Offer lines of communication for anyone who has concerns or questions

If you haven’t done so already, encourage staff to take some accrued holidays before they return, and to book future holidays as soon as possible:

  • Employers can require workers to take holidays on set dates – so long as they give double the notice of the amount of time to be taken off;
  • Employers may also allow some carry over if it is not possible for everyone to take all of their accrued days.

What else has been happening?

With Coronavirus dominating the news and keeping HR departments busy, it is easy to forget that there have been other important cases and developments since the pandemic hit.   Here are some of the key cases from the last 12 months

Uber and employment status

We reported recently on the Supreme Court’s decision that Uber drivers are workers for working time and national minimum wage purposes.   You can read our earlier article here.

Discrimination – Outdated Equality Policies

In harassment claims, an employer can run a ‘statutory defence’ that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring.   This argument is often based on the fact that the employer has an Equality Policy that explains that harassment and any discrimination will not be tolerated.   In the case of Allay (UK) Limited v Gehlen the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that whilst the employer had such a policy, not enough was done to remind staff of the policy and the required standards, as evidenced by the repeated racial harassment suffered by the Claimant.   The statutory defence therefore failed and the Claimant succeeded in his case.

This case is a good reminder for employers to regularly review and update their Equality Policy, and to provide regular training to managers to minimise the risk of discrimination occurring.

Discrimination Part II – Are Vegans a protected group for discrimination purposes?

They can be…. In Casamitana v League Against Cruel Sports the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant, an ‘ethical vegan’, who lives by a strict code based on his ethical views, was protected under the Equality Act on the basis that his philosophical beliefs relate to a substantial aspect of human life, have a certain level or cogency and importance, and are worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Whether a religion or belief is protected will depend on the facts of the case. In earlier cases, Scientologists and Rastafarians have been protected, whereas a Jedi was not protected (yes someone did claim that they were discriminated against because they are a Jedi!).   Interestingly, the same Judge from the ‘Vegan case’, held earlier in 2020 that a Vegetarian was not protected.

Gender Identity III

Gender reassignment is one of the 9 protected categories under the Equality Act.   In Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover, the Claimant, who identifies as gender fluid/non-binary, won £180,000 compensation in a landmark discrimination case, where, for the first time an Employment Tribunal held that a non-binary or gender fluid person is protected from discrimination.  The award here was extremely high owing to the level of harassment suffered and the future losses of earnings.  The Tribunal also made various recommendations to Jaguar Land Rover to prevent future discrimination.

What’s to come?

Aside from hopefully returning to something resembling normality in the next few months, here are some important developments that are definitely happening, and some we expect:


After several delays, the changes to the IR35 regime are finally due to come into force in April 2021.

For those of you who do not know what we are talking about, the IR35 regime was brought in in 2000 to identify businesses who do not pay the appropriate taxes for “disguised employees”, who work as self-employed contractors, often through intermediaries such as personal service companies (PSCs). At present, the responsibility to determine the tax status in the private sector lies with the party that pays the individual, usually a PSC.   Practically speaking, this has meant that many end user businesses have been able to avoid paying the correct Income Tax and National Insurance for contractors who should, if properly assessed, be classed as employees for tax purposes.

The IR35 regime reverses the responsibility.  From April 2021 the end user will be responsible for determining the tax status of contractors to make sure that the correct tax is accounted for.  This will not apply to small businesses, where the current regime will continue.

If you engage contractors and you have not already reviewed their employment status, you should do this without delay.  Our team will be happy to provide any necessary help and guidance along the way.

Carers’ Leave

After consultation in 2020, we expect new law to be passed to allow people with caring responsibility for vulnerable adults one week’s unpaid leave every year.  This will be in addition to the existing laws in respect of dependants leave.

Neonatal leave and pay

We also expect new law to allow parents up to 12 weeks’ additional leave to be added to maternity leave where their child has been in neonatal care.

Maternity and Redundancy

At present any employee who is on maternity leave and is selected for redundancy must be given first refusal of any suitable alternative employment.  It is proposed that this protection will be extended to cover the first six months after the end of maternity leave.

Health and Safety at Work

Under the current law, an employee can bring a claim in the Tribunal if they think that they have been subjected to a detriment because they reasonably believed that attending work would put them, or someone else (such as someone they live with), in imminent danger.   Claims of this nature were rare, until Covid happened.   As people gradually return to work and shielding support is removed, we anticipate more claims of this nature.    To add to the risk of claims for employers, from May 2021 the protection will extend to workers as well as employees.

Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy and Whistleblowing claims

More individuals are likely to bring whistleblowing claims flowing from the Coronavirus pandemic.  Countless workers will have raised health and safety concerns regarding the workplace and the risk of exposure to Coronavirus.  We expect many of these individuals will argue that they are ‘whistleblowers’ and attempt to join the dots between alleged whistleblowing and any subsequent bad treatment.

Given the enormous pressure that has been placed on businesses and the large number of redundancies that have been made over the last 12 months, it is almost inevitable that the Tribunal will have lots of cases where people challenge their selection for redundancy and claim unfair dismissal.

The last 12 months have thrown up lots of issues that our clients have not dealt with previously. 

We offer a variety of services to our clients, including helplines, insurance backed products for Employment Tribunal claims and other fixed fee services.   If you would like to discuss how we can help you and your business deal with Employment Law matters, please contact either Paul Stedman, Vicky Beattie, Neal Mellor or Sarah O’Brien on 0161 832 2500.

The BBS Law Corporate Team led by Dov Black and Rebecca Mills working closely with Lopian Gross Barnett Accountants has played a key role advising Frazer Durris, Dean Cockett and other shareholders of Businesswise Solutions on the sale of the company to Inspired Energy plc, the country’s largest Commercial and Energy advisors.  You can read more about the deal here.


The evolution of working practices over recent years has brought a flurry of litigation, as new technology-based working models have brought various complex legal issues to the fore; none more so than worker status.

This month the Supreme Court handed down one of the most significant employment law decisions of the tech era, finding that Uber drivers are “workers” for employment law purposes.

What was the issue?

Very broadly, there are three types of employment status:

  • Employee
  • Worker
  • Self-Employed.

Distinguishing employees from workers, and workers from self-employed contractors, can be very complicated; but the distinctions are significant.

Employees are fully protected by employment law, whereas the self-employed have little to no employment protection.  “Workers” sit in the middle.  Workers cannot bring claims for unfair dismissal, but they are, for example:-

  • Entitled to national minimum wage and holiday pay; and
  • Protected under the discrimination and whistle-blowing legislation.

What were Uber saying?

Uber contended that their Drivers are self-employed contractors.  They pointed to a number of arguments, notably:

  • The Drivers’ contracts specifically say that they are self-employed contractors.
  • That Uber is simply a booking agent that allows drivers to access private customers through its app.

There are also a lot of factors in the relationship that would normally point towards self-employment.  For example:

  • Drivers use their own cars and can use their own phones.
  • Drivers are responsible for their cars’ operating costs.
  • Drivers can decide when and where they work.
  • Drivers can work for competitors.

What the Supreme Court held

Despite the various arguments for self-employment, the Supreme Court’s decision fell on the amount of control that Uber have over the Drivers once they have logged on to the app and reported for duty:

  • Whilst, in theory, Drivers can choose when they work, once they are logged on to the app they can be penalised (logged off) if they refuse or cancel trips.
  • Where a Driver’s average customer rating falls below 4.4, they become subject to “quality interventions” and can be removed from the platform if they do not improve.
  • Drivers can be subject to financial penalties if they do not follow the recommended route.
  • The Driver has no control over what the customer pays for a trip, or, in turn, what they are paid by Uber.
  • Drivers have no say in the terms of their contract with Uber.
  • Whilst the drivers can use their own vehicles, the vehicles are subject to vetting by Uber.
  • Unlike minicab drivers, who have to find their own customers, Uber Drivers have their customers delivered to them via the app.

What does this mean for you?

Crucially, this decision means that Uber Drivers are entitled to:

  • National Minimum Wage for the time when they are logged on to the app, regardless of whether they are transporting passengers; and
  • Holiday pay.

This decision is far reaching and will apply to all similar business models, such as Deliveroo and UberEats, who connect customers to service providers via digital platforms.

This is definitely welcome news for the tens of thousands of people affected, but you can expect your next Uber trip (and takeaway) to be that little bit more expensive!

If you have any questions about employment status or the affect of this decision on your business, please contact the BBS Law Employment Team.

By Matthew Owen

Retail Prices Index (RPI) linked rent review clauses have become more common in recent years, adopted in residential long leases following a pushback against fixed ground rent increases and in commercial property leases as a welcome alternative to provide some rental growth.  With Covid19 likely to depress values particularly in the retail sector many landlords will be looking at RPI increases to create some assurance of steady rent increases.  However, this week could spell the end for RPI.

RPI is a measure of inflation utilised throughout the UK.   However, the ongoing Government consultation may mark the beginning of the end of the RPI liked rent review.

A House of Lords report into the RPI highlighted concerns with the way that the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) calculate RPI, specifically that the divergence in the rates between RPI and Consumer Prices Index was resulting a difference of 1% per annum. The report contained the following proposals:

  • The publication of RPI should cease; and
  • During the period which the legislation is being negotiated RPI should be aligned with the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH).

In response to the publication of this report, the Government announced a consultation with UKSA, which commenced on 11 March 2020, to review the proposed alignment with the CPIH and other technical matters concerning the implementation of the proposal.  The result of the review is due this week and it is likely that the RPI will be discontinued.

Clearly any changes to the way RPI is calculated would have wide-reaching consequences for property rents potentially reducing the increase in property rents by 1% annually.

Abolishing RPI will cause serious legal concerns potentially resulting  in some rent review clauses becoming redundant.  It is certainly not too early to try and do something about it.

While the implementation for the alignment of RPI with the CPIH index is targeted to take place between 2025 and 2030 it is important to ensure any index linked rent review clauses are drafted with the change in mind. Properly drafted leases should include the replacement of the index where RPI is abolished or a material change in the calculation of the index. Another complimentary approach where an alternative index is going to be adopted would be to introduce a “cap and collar”- which dictates the minimum and maximum increase, which would prevent Landlord losses in the event that RPI is significantly reduced.

Despite the RPI alignment causing apprehension in respect of existing leases, it may well be beneficial in new leases for alternative interest indices, such as CPIH, to be adopted to replace RPI for index-linked rent reviews.

With a first rent review in a commercial lease likely to be five years’ away it is worth paying some attention to the basis of review when negotiating your terms.

Matthew Owen is a solicitor in our Commercial Property team.  If you wish to discuss this article or any aspects of commercial property transactions you can contact Matthew by email or phone (0161 302 8399).  You can download a PDF of this article here.

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement on 31 October, additional financial support is being made available to individuals and businesses, including an extension to the furlough scheme, which will now remain open until December. 

Vicky Beattie and Neal Mellor of our Employment Team provide a useful summary of the latest changes

  • Employers of any size are eligible for the extended furlough scheme, which will continue for a further month.
  • Employees can be furloughed full time or can come back to work on a part time basis.
  • All employers with a UK bank account and UK PAYE schemes can claim the grant. The employer does not need to have previously used the furlough scheme.
  • Employees need to have been on an employer’s PAYE payroll by 23:59 30 October 2020 to be eligible for extended furlough. This means a Real Time Information (RTI) submission notifying payment for that employee to HMRC must have been made on or before 30th October 2020.
  • Employees can be on any type of contract to be eligible.
  • Employers will be able to agree any working arrangements with employees they are claiming for.
  • Employers can claim the grant for the hours their employees are not working, calculated by reference to their usual hours worked in a claim period. Such calculations will be broadly similar to the current furlough scheme.
  • In order to claim the grant for furloughed hours, employers will need to report and claim for a minimum period of 7 consecutive calendar days.
  • Employers will need to report hours worked and the usual hours an employee would be expected to work in a claim period.
  • For worked hours, employees will be paid by their employer subject to their employment contract and employers will be responsible for paying the tax and NICs due on those amounts.
  • For hours not worked by the employee, the government will pay 80% of wages up to a cap of £2,500. Employers will pay for the NICs and pension contributions. The grant must be paid to the employee in full.
  • Employers can choose to top up employee wages above the scheme grant at their own expense if they wish.

The Job Support Scheme (JSS), which was due to commence on 1 November, has been postponed until the extended furlough scheme ends.  

It is expected that further guidance and details, including how to claim under the extended furlough scheme through an updated claims service, will be provided shortly.

If you have any queries in relation to this or any employment issue, please contact Vicky Beattie or Neal Mellor by email or telephone – vicky@bbslaw.co.uk / neal@bbslaw.co.uk 0161 832 2500.