Charlie Mullins of Pimilico Plumbers

Thrugelmir

steampowered wrote: »

I think it is a bit ridiculous that you are trying to link this to the EU debate. Whatever happened to fairly analysing things on the actual facts o the case?

People rarely build a successful business without taking advantage of the rules and having an uncharitable nature. Easy to do when you can employ the best professionals. Democracy being controlled by those with the most money isn't healthy. Very American in nature with the amount of behind the scenes lobbying determining policy.

As soon as I heard the news earlier I connected the name immediately. Lightening rarely strikes twice in the same place.

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

The connection is that his pro-remain stance is at odds with the very non-EU employment practices he uses. I would expect somebody who likes to use their power & influence to try to overturn democracy to at least be consistent in their beliefs.

As I understand it, the dispute concerned an allegation of unfair dismissal and sick pay.

Both of these things come entirely from domestic legislation and have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

FWIW I don't think there's anything wrong with the way he treated the plumber, it's his funding of the anti-brexit (let's not pretend that was ever anything other than an attempt to derail brexit) that I find disgraceful. Luckily it backfired, albeit at huge expense to the taxpayer.

I really don't understand why you find it disgraceful for someone to contribute to a political cause. It was his money and he was free to spend it how he likes.

Do you find everyone who contributes to a political cause you don't agree with "disgraceful"?

Are you really suggesting that in a democratic society people should not be allowed to fund political causes that you happen to disagree with?

Perhaps he's just someone who likes to go to court whenever he doesn't get his own way.

He was the one being sued, not the other way around.

steampowered

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

How did HMRC allow him to trade on this basis?

They are at fault here as well.

No, this has nothing to do with HMRC at all. HMRC do not check whether each person is employed or self-employed. Nor would it be possible for them to do so.

If everyone who wanted to do any self-employed work needed to have a full assessment done by HMRC for each piece of work the economy would grind to a halt.

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

So just because he bought his own materials that makes him Self-employed?

He drove a company van, wore a company uniform and only did work for that company.

You can not just decide to be self-employed, there are rules, or supposed to be anyway.

Why don't you have a read of the judgment - another poster provided a link.

This man bought his own materials (to the tune of £52,887 in the last year if you read the judgment), supplied his own clothing, employed his wife as a secretary, had his office in his own house and was VAT registered. I would say that all of these things point pretty strongly to someone who is self-employed.

In a lot of cases it is ambiguous whether someone is self-employed or not. Hence why the Tribunals end up dealing with so many disputes about this. I suppose this case was close to that grey line.

POPPYOSCAR

steampowered wrote: »

As I understand it, the dispute concerned an allegation of unfair dismissal and sick pay.

Both of these things come entirely from domestic legislation and have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.


I really don't understand why you find it disgraceful for someone to contribute to a political cause. It was his money and he was free to spend it how he likes.

Do you find everyone who contributes to a political cause you don't agree with "disgraceful"?

Are you really suggesting that in a democratic society people should not be allowed to fund political causes that you happen to disagree with?


He was the one being sued, not the other way around.

I thought it was him that brought the appeal that was heard today?

POPPYOSCAR

steampowered wrote: »

No, this has nothing to do with HMRC at all. HMRC do not check whether each person is employed or self-employed. Nor would it be possible for them to do so.

If everyone who wanted to do any self-employed work needed to have a full assessment done by HMRC for each piece of work the economy would grind to a halt.


Why don't you have a read of the judgment - another poster provided a link.

This man bought his own materials (to the tune of £52,887 in the last year if you read the judgment), supplied his own clothing, employed his wife as a secretary, had his office in his own house and was VAT registered. I would say that all of these things point pretty strongly to someone who is self-employed.

In a lot of cases it is ambiguous whether someone is self-employed or not. Hence why the Tribunals end up dealing with so many disputes about this. I suppose this case was close to that grey line.

They do not check as a matter of course but they do check.

We run our own small business and when we started up we had HMRC question self-employed status within our business.

At the time their main criteria was only doing work for one company.

It would seem there are different rules for different people, or those that can afford expensive lawyers to draw up complicated contracts.

As he was registered as self-employed he would obviously take advantage of tax breaks like 'employing' the wife and claiming an amount for use of home, any accountant would do that as a matter of course.

leveller2911

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

They do not check as a matter of course but they do check.

We run our own small business and when we started up we had HMRC question self-employed status within our business.

At the time their main criteria was only doing work for one company.

It would seem there are different rules for different people, or those that can afford expensive lawyers to draw up complicated contracts.

As he was registered as self-employed he would obviously take advantage of tax breaks like 'employing' the wife and claiming an amount for use of home, any accountant would do that as a matter of course.

When I sub contracted to a company for 10yrs they too were looked into by HMRC. The specifically looked into what percentage of my yearly work was for that one employer and if it was over 60% they used that a sign to delve deeper.

The basic principle was did I take a financial risk so supplying materials, pricing work as opposed to only working on a day rate. Whether or not I could show that I decided what hours I worked rather than turning up every day at a certain time and going home at a certain time. Did I use my own tools, van etc were also taken into consideration.. At the time half of the subbies converted to PAYEand the other half just didn't work for the company as often.

From my own experience I can say that probably 80% of sub contractors in the Construction industry working for small/medium sized businesses are not self employed and should be classed as PAYE.

System

Bit desperate

Fella

steampowered wrote: »

I really don't understand why you find it disgraceful for someone to contribute to a political cause. It was his money and he was free to spend it how he likes.

Do you find everyone who contributes to a political cause you don't agree with "disgraceful"?

Are you really suggesting that in a democratic society people should not be allowed to fund political causes that you happen to disagree with?

Disgraceful because it was a shameful waste of time & taxpayers money & the only reason he brought the case was that he could afford to & he didn't like the fact that the public didn't agree with his point of view. And it's pretty laughable that you're talking about a democratic society in that context. Democracy was the referendum. His actions after were the very opposite of democratic. He went to court to get his own way. He tried to game the system when it didn't deliver the result he wanted. Still at least his attempt ultimately backfired.

Thrugelmir

steampowered wrote: »

This man bought his own materials (to the tune of £52,887 in the last year if you read the judgment), supplied his own clothing, employed his wife as a secretary, had his office in his own house and was VAT registered. I would say that all of these things point pretty strongly to someone who is self-employed.

Maybe so. But was contracted to work a five day week for Pimlico. When he asked to do only a 3 day week. Due to his health issues. The contract was terminated. Doesn't sound self employed, i.e. freedom for whom and when to work.

michaels

No doubt the plumber could have been an employed plumber, earning less, paying more tax and of course getting holiday and sick pay but having had his cake of higher earnings as a comtractor he now wants to eat it by claiming the benefits of being an employee.