Inside IR35 expenses vs reasonable adjustments for disability

[radish2008]

Thanks again to those of you who've been helpful (except NLUK: seriously, when you're dealing with what ....

To be frank if you want to whinge about having epilepsy then maybe a different forum would be a good idea. If you're private sector I would be looking long and hard at the reasons you think you are inside IR35.

[northernladyuk]

Thanks again to those of you who've been helpful (except NLUK: seriously, when you're dealing with what I'm dealing with, when you have to live your life with the anxiety of potentially losing consciousness and injuring yourself severely at any time, when you have to think about the fact you have a 1 in 150 chance of 'waking up dead' at some point in the next 12 months due to SUDEP, when you have to take medication that has severe side effects and is potentially life-limiting, and when despite all of this somehow you've got yourself into a situation where you can actually work and have some chance at continuing your previous professional life - in short, when you actually have some understanding of what epilepsy is, come back and speak to me about it. In the meantime, move along, please. I'm fed up with idiots who have no idea of what it means demeaning the fact that it is real, and its impacts are real. 1 in 100 people have epilepsy and not all of them are as lucky as me, but the fact that I am relatively lucky doesn't mean I don't suffer with it, because I do. But perhaps only 'real' disabled people are entitled to support, in your world, and I don't qualify...)

SueEllen and The Faqqer - thanks for your comments/ ideas. There's no question of me attempting to apply for DLA, PIP, or any other benefit - I wouldn't qualify for it (something wrong if I did given some of the people who should but don't) and wouldn't even try to go down that route. I appreciate I'm not an employee of the client here, but I *am* an employee of my limited company. Put simply, the limited company has a few options here. One of them would be to have me work from home (for example) because I can't drive. That would be cheap from one perspective, but would severely limit my role options and therefore ultimately be commercially bad. It is definitely better for my limited company to sell my services in London for a higher rate, whilst stumping up for the travel costs to enable it, than to make other apparently cheaper adjustments. Yes, clearly I could move house and if I can't get my driving licence back in 5 months that is on the cards (but remember this is my home - I will move if i have to in order to get my life back but I don't want to do it unnecessarily). But seriously, in this situation if I weren't my own boss, would a company force you to move house or would they consider paying for taxis a reasonable adjustment to enable you to continue to bring in maximum income? I reckon the latter!

At the end of the day, as my original post made clear, if I have to fund it all myself from my salary then I will do so, it's the basis on which I'd been planning and assuming. It has only been late in the day when thinking about the difference between this year and last year and reflecting on my frustration at what that means for me, that it suddenly occurred to me there might be some HMRC rules covering this which might help me. That's the point about disability regulations. They're designed to put disabled people onto a more level playing people with able bodied people. And right now, the only thing different between what I can do this year and what I could do last year, is my epilepsy.

I suspect overall that I'll find I'm between regulations in my definitely-unusual situation. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if disabled people WERE enabled to pursue all kinds of careers, including limited company contractors?

P.S. not a public sector client, private sector but definitely within IR35.

Have you looked at:

http://www.gov.uk/reasonable-adjustm...sabled-workers

If you're inside IR35, why not go via a brolly and be a real employee? They can then make the reasonable adjustments. You might agree with them calculate the daily cost of acommodation and get it out of your pre-tax income. No idea if that's viable (will that count as a reasonable adjustment or a BIK falling foul of inside IR35 travel rules?) so you'd need to look into it. You probably need specialist disability advice. You could also have a word with Lisa / Lucy at contractorumbrella.

[northernladuk]

Thanks again to those of you who've been helpful (except NLUK: seriously, when you're dealing with what I'm dealing with, when you have to live your life with the anxiety of potentially losing consciousness and injuring yourself severely at any time, when you have to think about the fact you have a 1 in 150 chance of 'waking up dead' at some point in the next 12 months due to SUDEP, when you have to take medication that has severe side effects and is potentially life-limiting, and when despite all of this somehow you've got yourself into a situation where you can actually work and have some chance at continuing your previous professional life - in short, when you actually have some understanding of what epilepsy is, come back and speak to me about it. In the meantime, move along, please. I'm fed up with idiots who have no idea of what it means demeaning the fact that it is real, and its impacts are real. 1 in 100 people have epilepsy and not all of them are as lucky as me, but the fact that I am relatively lucky doesn't mean I don't suffer with it, because I do. But perhaps only 'real' disabled people are entitled to support, in your world, and I don't qualify...)

WTF. Why are you calling me out? I don't see I've been crass or inappropriate.

My comments are directly related to a page on the Access to Work section on the Gov website that I went to go look at in an effort to help you.

Page is here..

https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work/what-youll-get

Which says

The money can pay for things like:

adaptations to the equipment you use
special equipment
fares to work if you can’t use public transport
a support worker or job coach to help you in your workplace
a support service if you have a mental health condition and you’re absent from work or finding it difficult to work
disability awareness training for your colleagues
a communicator at a job interview
the cost of moving your equipment if you change location or job

It doesn't mention concessions to tax legislation which is what I said.

I'm sorry if I didn't sound wholly sympathetic, I'm just getting on with the facts which I what I thought you were after. You did say 'So all thoughts gratefully received please, CUK!'

[northernladuk]

Have you looked at:

http://www.gov.uk/reasonable-adjustm...sabled-workers

If you're inside IR35, why not go via a brolly and be a real employee? They can then make the reasonable adjustments. You might agree with them calculate the daily cost of acommodation and get it out of your pre-tax income. No idea if that's viable (will that count as a reasonable adjustment or a BIK falling foul of inside IR35 travel rules?) so you'd need to look into it. You probably need specialist disability advice. You could also have a word with Lisa / Lucy at contractorumbrella.

I'd say that's a great place to start but just not Lisa left the company quite awhile ago. Lucy is your go to now.

[northernladyuk]

One more thought if the client is likely to be sympathetic.

https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-adjust...sabled-workers

states

Employers must make reasonable adjustments to make sure disabled workers (including contract workers, trainees, apprentices and business partners) aren’t seriously disadvantaged when doing their jobs.

I wonder if:

a) they would arrange your accommodation via their corporate hotel booking account
b) they would deduct this from your rate
c) you will get away with this not being a BIK

[Glencky]

NorthernLadyUK - Re: brolly - maybe one day but not for now, though I understand why you've suggested. On the rest - thanks, interesting thought process and one I'll mull over. We'll have to see what happens when I start (on a number of levels, as usual with a new gig) but definitely something I hadn't thought of. It's the 'getting away with it not being a BIK' that is the angle I'm most interested in, because I think in very general terms, when an employer spends money on an employee making a reasonable adjustment, the legislation I mentioned earlier is there to enable the necessary exemption so that it isn't reportable as a BIK. So if an employer has to buy a Braille laptop for a blind person, it's not deemed a BIK just because everyone else doesn't have one. Of course, in my situation we have complexity layered on complexity - I'm an employee of my company, and separately because inside IR35 I'm taxed as if I were an employee of the end client. If I was a permie in one location it'd be crazy to continue with that location being 2.5 hours away from work; it's more interesting to think of it as if I were a consultant or similar where the expectation in the role is always going to be that you travel. But of course in that situation, I'd be getting travelling expenses to be on a client site anyway! so all that would be happening would be the employer would be paying for stuff outside of their usual policy (assuming employers would usually pay mileage and not taxi rates) and it would probably not raise an eyebrow or even be considered as a BIK.

It's an unfortunate conjunction of me being a one person band, caught by IR35 AND in this situation.

Radish2008, I didn't write this thread to 'whinge about having epilepsy' - I mentioned it only enough to be directly relevant in my OP. Clearly, if I wanted to drone on about my terrible year I could do so, for pages. But as it was I expanded only to defend myself, which I think any of us is entitled to.

NLUK - I called you out because I *do* think your response was crass at best, and at worst your choice of wording implied I'm trying to 'get something for nothing' and/or with no justification - hence my response. Yes, I did say 'all thoughts gratefully received' and didn't think I needed to specify 'all thoughts that don't demean me or diminish my condition'. Maybe I should consider such a disclaimer next time. Reread your post and consider it from my perspective. You might get it, you might not. I accept your later posts, though, make it clear you really are trying to be helpful - so thanks for that. The wording of the Access to Work page - and indeed the DDA on which it is based - is 'like[list]'. Regulations make it clear that each situation is assessed based on its own merits and what this means is that any list is not exhaustive. Disability-related regulations tend to leave room for judgement (viz, the very woolly phrase 'reasonable adjustments') for precisely this reason, and whilst it can sometimes be unhelpful (because anything not definitive can be less clear) it's often more helpful because it caters for even unusual situations. And I think mine is pretty unusual (and in general, unseen disabilities, in common with psychological or mental health ones, are harder to think of specific examples for that are generally relatable). If it was me making the judgement, I know the one I'd make. But it's not, so I'll have to rely on expert advice! thanks for the tips about who in Contractor Umbrella might know more.

There are some interesting (intellectually) issues here, and I'm fairly confident I'll find I'm on a hiding to nothing and will end up covering it all myself having fallen through the gaps... but I think it's worth pursuing to verify.

[northernladyuk]

NorthernLadyUK - Re: brolly - maybe one day but not for now, though I understand why you've suggested. On the rest - thanks, interesting thought process and one I'll mull over. We'll have to see what happens when I start (on a number of levels, as usual with a new gig) but definitely something I hadn't thought of. It's the 'getting away with it not being a BIK' that is the angle I'm most interested in, because I think in very general terms, when an employer spends money on an employee making a reasonable adjustment, the legislation I mentioned earlier is there to enable the necessary exemption so that it isn't reportable as a BIK. So if an employer has to buy a Braille laptop for a blind person, it's not deemed a BIK just because everyone else doesn't have one. Of course, in my situation we have complexity layered on complexity - I'm an employee of my company, and separately because inside IR35 I'm taxed as if I were an employee of the end client. If I was a permie in one location it'd be crazy to continue with that location being 2.5 hours away from work; it's more interesting to think of it as if I were a consultant or similar where the expectation in the role is always going to be that you travel. But of course in that situation, I'd be getting travelling expenses to be on a client site anyway! so all that would be happening would be the employer would be paying for stuff outside of their usual policy (assuming employers would usually pay mileage and not taxi rates) and it would probably not raise an eyebrow or even be considered as a BIK.

It's an unfortunate conjunction of me being a one person band, caught by IR35 AND in this situation.

Radish2008, I didn't write this thread to 'whinge about having epilepsy' - I mentioned it only enough to be directly relevant in my OP. Clearly, if I wanted to drone on about my terrible year I could do so, for pages. But as it was I expanded only to defend myself, which I think any of us is entitled to.

NLUK - I called you out because I *do* think your response was crass at best, and at worst your choice of wording implied I'm trying to 'get something for nothing' and/or with no justification - hence my response. Yes, I did say 'all thoughts gratefully received' and didn't think I needed to specify 'all thoughts that don't demean me or diminish my condition'. Maybe I should consider such a disclaimer next time. Reread your post and consider it from my perspective. You might get it, you might not. I accept your later posts, though, make it clear you really are trying to be helpful - so thanks for that. The wording of the Access to Work page - and indeed the DDA on which it is based - is 'like[list]'. Regulations make it clear that each situation is assessed based on its own merits and what this means is that any list is not exhaustive. Disability-related regulations tend to leave room for judgement (viz, the very woolly phrase 'reasonable adjustments') for precisely this reason, and whilst it can sometimes be unhelpful (because anything not definitive can be less clear) it's often more helpful because it caters for even unusual situations. And I think mine is pretty unusual (and in general, unseen disabilities, in common with psychological or mental health ones, are harder to think of specific examples for that are generally relatable). If it was me making the judgement, I know the one I'd make. But it's not, so I'll have to rely on expert advice! thanks for the tips about who in Contractor Umbrella might know more.

There are some interesting (intellectually) issues here, and I'm fairly confident I'll find I'm on a hiding to nothing and will end up covering it all myself having fallen through the gaps... but I think it's worth pursuing to verify.

So, as:

https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-adjust...sabled-workers

states

Employers must make reasonable adjustments to make sure disabled workers (including contract workers, trainees, apprentices and business partners) aren’t seriously disadvantaged when doing their jobs.

That is very broad, and it would be surprising (but not impossible) if this excludes Ltd owner/ directors, so make your accountant earn her / his fee and find out.

Also get onto http://www.gov.uk/contact-jobcentre-plus and get their view (but will it be HMRC's view?), as o whether your Ltd had the same obligation to you as other employers.

Finally, out of interest, if you're inside IR35, why don't you want to use a brolly?

[northernladuk]

I'm an employee of my company,

It's a pedantic point I make for fun but could be a very important factor in your situation... but you aren't. If we are talking employer related benefits for your condition the fact you aren't technically an employee could be pretty key.

NLUK - I called you out because I *do* think your response was crass at best, and at worst your choice of wording implied I'm trying to 'get something for nothing' and/or with no justification - hence my response. Yes, I did say 'all thoughts gratefully received' and didn't think I needed to specify 'all thoughts that don't demean me or diminish my condition'. Maybe I should consider such a disclaimer next time.

Or consider you are reading souless text and are on a free forum on the internet. Not everything is meant in the way the text reads and people hide behind screens. Some things you've gotta let slide or grow some I'm afraid. I don't feel the need to make light of your condition and I'm certainly not having a go or attempting to be-little you, but you think it looks like I am. You see my point?

[northernladyuk]

It's a pedantic point I make for fun but could be a very important factor in your situation... but you aren't. If we are talking employer related benefits for your condition the fact you aren't technically an employee could be pretty key.

It is an important point as well as pedantic, but this is very broad:

Employers must make reasonable adjustments to make sure disabled workers (including contract workers, trainees, apprentices and business partners) aren’t seriously disadvantaged when doing their jobs.

The intention must be to ensure workers are not disadvantaged in the workplace by putting obligations onto companies. How it all turns out in the wash is a different issue of course.


Edit:

http://www.theguardian.com/careers/2...n-legal-rights

Who is protected?
The Act applies to all employees, job applicants, trainees, contract workers, office holders (including company directors and managers), those who are on secondment and the self-employed. All areas of employment are covered, including recruitment, selection and promotion, training, pay and the provision of benefits, retirement, dismissal, redundancy and occupational pensions.

[radish2008]

Radish2008, I didn't write this thread to 'whinge about having epilepsy' - I mentioned it only enough to be directly relevant in my OP. Clearly, if I wanted to drone on about my terrible year I could do so, for pages. But as it was I expanded only to defend myself, which I think any of us is entitled to.

My post was aimed more at the fact you plainly attacked someone who was only trying to help you. I read the post and don't see any of the justification that you have since given so I would say you were still out of order.

To be frank though let's keep it to the fact that are of interest to people here:

Why, exactly, are in in IR35 - I think this is crucial because if you are not then your expenses can be justified as business expenses. This is crucial and I don't think you have answered yet.