Discuss Self employment & Pimlico Plumbers court case ... in the Business Related area at ElectriciansForums.net
Absolutely. However I cannot see how he is not an employee rather than just a "worker". Clearly he was not self-employed despite being paid through CIS etc.
They will also be liable for Employer's NI! No sympathy for Pimlico or that disease of a man Charlie Mullins.the bloke who founded pimlico plumbers was on the news tonight, the guy who brought the court case was self employed for NI, tax and all HMRC purposes. But when he had a heart attack wanted paid sick leave and they said nope... you are self employed. so he took them to court... It seems he was happy being self employed for tax purposes to keep his money but when it suits wanted his cake and to eat it....
The owner is now writing to HMRC asking them to revisit the blokes tax affairs in light of the decision saying if he was an employee then back date his taxes accordingly! he cant have it both ways..... [personally I would take it on the chin and pay out, the amount they charge to hire out plumbers and sparks its water off a ducks back for them.
Im no fan of him, I find him very smug and pretentious.... something about him just makes me dislike him!They will also be liable for Employer's NI! No sympathy for Pimlico or that disease of a man Charlie Mullins.
Indeed. He's the type whose own mother would struggle to love.Im no fan of him, I find him very smug and pretentious.... something about him just makes me dislike him!
There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.An interesting argument. The branded product the forcing of hours and trackers would lead most people to believe he is indeed employed by a company, but then not paying PAYE, full national insurance rate as an employee would etc would point to being self employed. Not sure I really like either of them as both seem to want there cake and eat it.
If the supreme court are saying he was indeed "employed" and should be entitled the protection (haha) that can offer then surely the both parties are guilty of tax fraud ?
There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.
There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.
There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.
There is no evidence that he was complicit in the bogus self-employment. I suspect Pimlico force all of their employees to illegally pretend that they are self-employed.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's certainly a valid assumption to make that he didn't feel able to deal with it whilst he was employed by Pimlico for fear of losing his job. Once they sacked him he was then open to pursue it.No, I have not missed the point, I simply don't believe this man was a victim or forced into anything (at no point in this report or subsequent reports does he suggest this either). He had a choice, six years is a long time to find other suitable employment or get legal advice on what he was doing while working at/for Pimlico. Why did he not do this, possibly because it suited him not to look into it too hard, of course this all changed when he got shafted. He should not of been treated the way he was after a heart attack and the shitty way Pimlico plumber go about there business is not a great advert for any tradesmen.
Reply to Self employment & Pimlico Plumbers court case ... in the Business Related area at ElectriciansForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.