• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Furloughed - Company Activity"

Collapse

  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Reasonable. I am curious about my wife's situation as a nursery manager. She is putting together resource packs for kids (currently enrolled and others in our village) to help the families. The families are not being charged while the nursery is shut and this is being done primarily to help the community, BUT you could say this is work and even argue it is advertising - which we'd quite happily agree is a side benefit - though it is not done for that purpose or generating any revenue. I would argue this sort of thing should be encouraged personally BUT if an employee were doing it it is clearly against the furlough rules.
    In Martin Lewis's video he talks about being able to freelance away from the LTD. Sounds like it's just a recipe for piss take in most situations but is a perfect example for your wife. There is nothing wrong with her using her skills to create something and help people as long as it's away from the LTD which is exactly what she's doing. She isn't working from the nursery shes volunteering her time and knowledge for community so I think what she is doing is not only perfectly fine but quite admirable.
    Another example is a local church has furloughed their youth workers on 100% pay. This means they are not allowed to do volunteer work that is part of their normal job. So other people in the church are volunteering to do that instead because their work is if anything more valuable right now. Which seems rather contrary to the intent of the rules but understandable... many companies WOULD claim furlough grants then expect workers to 'volunteer' to do their regular jobs <cough Sports Direct>
    Again, I'd say this is fine. The workers can't carry out their duties due to coronavirus. They can't be made to do it and it can't be done safely so they are furloughed. If volunteers want to step in then that's a completely different thing. They are doing at their risk and can't be told to do it.
    Isn't it kinda like hairdressers furloughing themselves so parents are having to cut the kids hair. The parents are volunteering to do what the hairdressers/can't won't?
    Obviously none of the youth workers can come near the volunteering work. That's cutting it a bit fine in theory I'd say.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Employees of course. Clients could be problematic. The minute you start talking about work it could fail the test. You could ring them, ask if everyone is safe and chat about your situation but making any kind of arrangements or chatting about the service is beyond a directors basic obligations I'd say.
    Reasonable. I am curious about my wife's situation as a nursery manager. She is putting together resource packs for kids (currently enrolled and others in our village) to help the families. The families are not being charged while the nursery is shut and this is being done primarily to help the community, BUT you could say this is work and even argue it is advertising - which we'd quite happily agree is a side benefit - though it is not done for that purpose or generating any revenue. I would argue this sort of thing should be encouraged personally BUT if an employee were doing it it is clearly against the furlough rules.

    Another example is a local church has furloughed their youth workers on 100% pay. This means they are not allowed to do volunteer work that is part of their normal job. So other people in the church are volunteering to do that instead because their work is if anything more valuable right now. Which seems rather contrary to the intent of the rules but understandable... many companies WOULD claim furlough grants then expect workers to 'volunteer' to do their regular jobs <cough Sports Direct>

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by PerfectStorm View Post
    5.25 when he gets to the conflicting advice from two gov depts..

    Designing advertising leaflets and posting future jobs on line. He might have got conflicting advice but that's not grey at all surely. One is a role someone carries out in the business for purpose of creating revenue in the long run. Nothing like the basics of a directors duties.

    He's also said it's probably acceptable in the bigger scheme just as paralytic says.

    Interesting comments about going freelancing and not running it through your business though. Might work for some but sounds open to abuse to me.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 17 April 2020, 12:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • PerfectStorm
    replied
    YouTube

    Leave a comment:


  • Paralytic
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    So a director keeping in touch with clients and furloughed employees would be reasonable in your view?
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Employees of course. Clients could be problematic. The minute you start talking about work it could fail the test. You could ring them, ask if everyone is safe and chat about your situation but making any kind of arrangements or chatting about the service is beyond a directors basic obligations I'd say.
    I agree with NLUK here, but also think, who is going to know or care, so long as you're not overtly trading.

    I think the test I'd apply is whether something I did directly or indirectly earned income for the company, even if that income was received after the furlough period. In my view, that crosses the line into fraud (not necessarily on a legal level) as I'd both be earning income and claiming benefits for the same period of time.
    Last edited by Paralytic; 17 April 2020, 07:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    So a director keeping in touch with clients and furloughed employees would be reasonable in your view?
    Employees of course. Clients could be problematic. The minute you start talking about work it could fail the test. You could ring them, ask if everyone is safe and chat about your situation but making any kind of arrangements or chatting about the service is beyond a directors basic obligations I'd say.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by PerfectStorm View Post
    Getting tied up in theory...

    The restriction is against revenue generating activity. I could tweet 24/7 for a year and no payments will be made.
    So a director keeping in touch with clients and furloughed employees would be reasonable in your view?

    Leave a comment:


  • PerfectStorm
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Isn't creating awareness of your company brand called marketing?
    Getting tied up in theory...

    The restriction is against revenue generating activity. I could tweet 24/7 for a year and no payments will be made.

    Leave a comment:


  • MPwannadecentincome
    replied
    Originally posted by DSF70 View Post
    Surely the point of furloughing your employee, is to claim the 80% / £2500 (paid into your business account) so that you can continue to pay them their paye (or agreed new paye amount)?
    running payroll counts as official director's responsibilities

    Leave a comment:


  • DSF70
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Would running payroll also be in that category i.e. you want to make sure everything is no a standing order?

    Now, isn't this all a case where having someone else (e.g. spouse) as company secretary or unpaid director is actually quite beneficial? They could do all these sorts of things living you no requirement to do anything (officially).
    Surely the point of furloughing your employee, is to claim the 80% / £2500 (paid into your business account) so that you can continue to pay them their paye (or agreed new paye amount)?

    Leave a comment:


  • CheeseSlice
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Isn't creating awareness of your company brand called marketing?
    I think if you can make the tweeting or Linkedin posting something that promotes the success of the company, then you're actually carrying out one of your statutory duties as a director.

    7 duties of a company director

    Promoting the success of the company

    The duty states a director must act in a way that they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members (shareholders) as a whole. When making decisions, directors must also consider the likely consequences for various stakeholders, including employees, suppliers, customers and communities. They should also consider the impact on the environment, the reputation of the company, company success in the longer term and all of the shareholders (including minority shareholders).
    I think tweeting or posting on Linkedin about how your company is still here and ready to spring back from the Covid-19 lockdown, or perhaps helping with the response, or even how it has previously helped a customer achieve a goal, could be considered promoting the success of the company. You're protecting the value of the company for its shareholders, and its viability to carry on trading once covid-19 is all over.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by electronicfur View Post

    No mention of dividends, so appears there are no restrictions.
    Which is what we said.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by oilboil View Post
    in the 2008 Gordon Brown Financial Crash,
    OK Donald.

    Leave a comment:


  • electronicfur
    replied
    Originally posted by oilboil View Post
    They forced banks to suspend dividend payments because in the 2008 Gordon Brown Financial Crash, they government became a major shareholder in lots of banks. Therefore it had the voting capacity to actually reject dividend motions to pay dividends in many banks
    No that's incorrect, the government are not shareholders in lots of banks. They only have shareholdings in RBS and hold some run-off elements of B&B and Northern Rock.

    On the 31st of March 2020 banks were ordered not to pay dividends. This is why banks have cancelled their dividends until the end of the year. The regulator said the banks are not likely to need the extra money that they save from scrapping dividends, but the extra headroom is to allow them to support the economy this year.

    Leave a comment:


  • oilboil
    replied
    Originally posted by electronicfur View Post
    The government could state companies who pay more than x% of their dividends to furloughed employees must suspend dividend payments. They forced banks to suspend dividend payments, so I wouldn't put it past them.

    But rather than rely on the condescending replies here, I've found the official guidance here:

    Claim for your employees' wages through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme - GOV.UK

    Note there is a whole section about furloughing company directors...

    No mention of dividends, so appears there are no restrictions.
    They forced banks to suspend dividend payments because in the 2008 Gordon Brown Financial Crash, they government became a major shareholder in lots of banks. Therefore it had the voting capacity to actually reject dividend motions to pay dividends in many banks

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X