Can I work both a Permanant and Contract Role?

[BlasterBates]

"Consumers"......

Consumers have completely different legal recourses than businesses.

So if you put in a false insurance claim why do they prosecute you?

[northernladuk]

So if you put in a false insurance claim why do they prosecute you?

It's getting a bit silly this. It's a complex area with different approaches. For example...

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006

The borderline between criminal and civil liability


The borderline between criminal and civil liability is likely to be an issue in alleged Fraud Act offences particularly those under Section 1. Prosecutors should bear in mind that the principle of caveat emptor applies and should consider whether civil proceedings or the regulatory regime that applies to advertising and other commercial activities might be more appropriate. Not every advertising puff should lead to a criminal conviction but it is also the case that fraudsters prey on the vulnerable.

Prosecutors should guard against the criminal law being used as a debt collection agency or to protect the commercial interests of companies and organisations. However, prosecutors should also remain alert to the fact that such organisations can become the focus of serious and organised criminal offending.

The criminal law should not be used to protect private confidences.

So a contractual dispute would defer to a different regulator regime first before coming up as fraud and so on, which is different to a customer intentionally defrauding an insurance company. That is why I pointed out to you that working two contract's isn't fraud. It's highly dependant on what has been done and most likely go down a contractual dispute before outright fraud. That's a slightly grey area and then you make your mind up which way to go.

[WTFH]

So the answer to the OP is no you can't. It's probably in breach of contract and could become very costly.

[BlasterBates]

It's getting a bit silly this. It's a complex area with different approaches. For example...

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006



So a contractual dispute would defer to a different regulator regime first before coming up as fraud and so on, which is different to a customer intentionally defrauding an insurance company. That is why I pointed out to you that working two contract's isn't fraud. It's highly dependant on what has been done and most likely go down a contractual dispute before outright fraud. That's a slightly grey area and then you make your mind up which way to go.

What would be the difference between charging for 40 hours when you'd only worked 20 and this?:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-after-5282574

A £40,000-a-year hospital sister who was in debt to pay-day loan companies is behind bars after falsifying timesheets while she was really on holiday or out watching the rugby.

Would it have been OK had she worked on an IT contract instead of watching rugby?

Why didn't the police simply tell her employer this was a civil matter and they should simply sue her for breach of contract?

[jamesbrown]

So the answer to the OP is no you can't. It's probably in breach of contract and could become very costly.

Something like that. That the OP either didn't check their contract or did and thought they could get away with ignoring it tells you all you need to know. Just another clueless chancer. By all means, work as many gigs as you want, but make sure it's not a breach of contract and don't hide it. It's all pretty obvious.

[cannon999]

What would be the difference between charging for 40 hours when you'd only worked 20 and this?:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-after-5282574



Would it have been OK had she had worked on an IT contract instead of watching rugby?

Why didn't the police simply tell her employer this was a civil matter and they should simply sue her for breach of contract?

It's pretty simple. It's public money

[Lance]

What would be the difference between charging for 40 hours when you'd only worked 20 and this?:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-after-5282574



Would it have been OK had she worked on an IT contract instead of watching rugby?

Why didn't the police simply tell her employer this was a civil matter and they should simply sue her for breach of contract?

Loads of differences.
- It's the Daily Mirror so almost certainly not got accurate legal details
- She's an employee so this would almost certainly have started with a disciplinary track with HR.
- She committed conspiracy to fraud, not just fraud, as she got juniors to falsely sign timesheets. These juniors may also have been subject to disciplinary, and that may also have resulted in this going to the police if the juniors claimed they were bullied, or went to a tribunal.
- She was struck off by her professional body. That is outside a criminal prosecution but may well have a dependency so another reason this could have gone criminal.
- A trade union would have been involved as well.

So it's nothing like the same. Stop comparing apples and spanners. The only common factor is dishonesty. Next up you'll ask why Boris hasn't been prosecuted for fraud.

EDIT: and Cannon999 has made a good point. It's public money. not that that will always result in this sort of situation but it provides good optics for various bodies.

EDIT again: More differences.
- Rogerstone nurse jailed after falsely claiming she had worked 106 times | South Wales Argus - She stole money as well by banking a cheque not intended for her.
- The police didn't investigate. It was a private investigation.

[northernladuk]

What would be the difference between charging for 40 hours when you'd only worked 20 and this?:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-after-5282574

Would it have been OK had she worked on an IT contract instead of watching rugby?

Why didn't the police simply tell her employer this was a civil matter and they should simply sue her for breach of contract?

I don't know and I don't really care. It's a complexity beyond the OP's situation so doesn't really matter.

At a vague guess she falsified something which is outright fraud and stolen money. Sitting on your arse for a client is performance based which is contractual. As the link and quote above said it would be dealt with by any other method, i.e. contractual dispute up to the point the client decides you've been fraudulent and calls the police. She would have been dealt with by employment tribunal but because of the scale of her fraud it went to the police. If the client find out you've been wagging it and stealing from them and wants to call the police to reclaim their money though the courts I am sure they can.

She did a lot more than just wagging a bit of work as well and is in a position of trust. Thoroughly unpleasant lady.

But still apples and pears to the OP's possible situation.

[BlasterBates]

https://getetz.com/timesheets/strang...t-back-office/

Across the UK, fraud is costing us dear with £144 billion going missing and leading to a total bill reckoned to be up to £193 billion. Most of this is related to procurement scams of one kind or another. However, £12 billion of this was attributed to payroll fraud in all its guises.

..and anyone who thinks prosecution isn't an option:

All contractors and temps should sign a counter fraud declaration stating that information is correct and that should any be discovered to be false it may result in disciplinary action, prosecution and civil recovery proceedings

The fact that you haven't signed a counter fraud declaration won't make you immune from prosecution if the legal dept thinks the sum is big enough.

[Lance]

https://getetz.com/timesheets/strang...t-back-office/



..and anyone who thinks prosecution isn't an option:



The fact that you haven't signed a counter fraud declaration won't make you immune from prosecution if the legal dept thinks the sum is big enough.

give it a rest now. You've made your point. It's not valid to the situation. Or the discussion.
It's very valid for completely unrelated circumstances.

Well done you. You are quite correct, but in a different discussion.