Originally posted by eek
View Post
- 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!
Reply to: Bike courier wins her court case
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "Bike courier wins her court case"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by fannyadams View PostBut they're not employees, they're self employed workers.
Yes I did use the word employee but to be blunt that is the battle we will be seeing from March onwards because if you have 2 people doing the same job one a permanent member of staff the other a self employed worker your typical contractor will be seeking employee rights (corresponding to the rights of the permanent staff) not workers rights.
These gig economy roles are going to continually win cases that state they are workers rather than self employed workers simply because the way the end company / consolidator / brand (Uber, Addison Lee....) use the workers make them workers rather than self employed workers. and Customs and Excise are going to be rubbing their hands with glee...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostUtterly irrelevant to the point I'm making there. As self employed the courier / uber is stating that you are paying the self employed worker via the app and hence VAT isn't due as that workers income doesn't reach the threshold.
As an employee you are paying the company directly and hence VAT would be due as the company's turnover will be well over the VAT threshold...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by fannyadams View PostThey're not "employees", they're workers - see https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/overview
As an employee you are paying the company directly and hence VAT would be due as the company's turnover will be well over the VAT threshold...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostIt's also worth saying that bigger stakes than employee rights are also at play here.
As someone pointed out over Christmas if Uber are employing their workers and not using freelancers all rides should have had VAT paid at 20%.... One reason for self employed drivers is that individually they don't reach the VAT registration threshold...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostIndeed, it's a tribunal, not a test case in a higher court of law. Existing case law is sufficient to catch these sham arrangements. It's significant though in at least two respects: 1) it will pressure companies to change their practices as many more come forward, although that's a slow and arduous process; and, more importantly 2) it will encourage HMG to legislate (difficult to predict the timeframe or outcome of that). With the volume of stories on worker exploitation, on the one hand, and the perceived self-employed tax gap on the other (almost daily in the FT, and the first thing Hammond talked about in the AS), it's only a matter of time before something changes, radically.
If you get told you are getting a massive pay cut in a few months then there is nothing to lose for launching a claim.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SueEllen View PostUnfortunately this case can't be extrapolated to other couriers.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostBike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case
Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case - BBC News
This is going to be interesting.
Leave a comment:
-
It's also worth saying that bigger stakes than employee rights are also at play here.
As someone pointed out over Christmas if Uber are employing their workers and not using freelancers all rides should have had VAT paid at 20%.... One reason for self employed drivers is that individually they don't reach the VAT registration threshold...
Leave a comment:
-
Bike courier wins her court case
Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case
Bike courier wins 'gig' economy employment rights case - BBC News
This is going to be interesting.Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Today 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Yesterday 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
- Contracting Awards 2024 hails 19 firms as best of the best Nov 18 09:13
- How to answer at interview, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ Nov 14 09:59
- Business Asset Disposal Relief changes in April 2025: Q&A Nov 13 09:37
- How debt transfer rules will hit umbrella companies in 2026 Nov 12 09:28
- IT contractor demand floundering despite Autumn Budget 2024 Nov 11 09:30
- An IR35 bill of £19m for National Resources Wales may be just the tip of its iceberg Nov 7 09:20
- Micro-entity accounts: Overview, and how to file with HMRC Nov 6 09:27
Leave a comment: