Charlie Mullins of Pimilico Plumbers

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

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.

The Company likewise benefits and saves a lot of money. Ultimately it's the Treasury that loses out. At a time when NHS funding is a hot topic. Everybody paying their fair share of tax is high up the agenda.

kinger101

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.

It's not different rules for different people. It's every case being judged on it's merits. And there is not single criterion that makes someone employed. Technically, it isn't HMRC's responsibility to decide whether someone is employed or not, but they are free to challenge anyone claiming they're self-employed (or using the services of a self-employed person).

Being largely defined by case law, the distinction between employee and self-employed is often grey, and it would be foolish of HMRC to end up in court on a minor case which they might not win.

I agree there could be more clarity to eliminate some of the crap that goes on with the likes of Uber, but that's a matter for parliament. I'd like the whole "worker" thing removed, leaving only "employed" and "self-employed".

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

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.

Hang on a minute. The case was successful. They won. The Supreme Court agreed that parliament needs to approve the triggering of Article 50.

The institution responsible for spending taxpayers' money on this case was the government. Had the government not tried to shortcut the centuries old legal principle that laws are passed by parliament, the case would not have needed to go to court.

When the case was decided, parliament duly voted to approve the triggering of Article 50 within a matter of weeks. There is no reason why that vote couldn't have taken place months ago.

Frankly think this is just common sense. The idea that laws are passed by parliament, not by the prime minister, is pretty fundamental to the UK's constitutional settlement. Unless you want to live in a tinpot dictatorship we can't have the prime minister passing and revoking laws without a parliamentary vote.

Needless to say, none of this has anything at all to do with a court case about whether a plumber is a worker or self-employed. What you are trying to do is attack the person rather than deal with the actual facts.

I really hate this attitude because it is intellectually lazy and sets a really bad example. If the CEO of this company was a Brexit supporter your view on an identical case would be completely different. No wonder our politics are in such a mess when people would rather be tribal about things than deal with the actual facts of the issue in hand.

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.

I agree, that is why Pimlico Plumbers lost the case. The point is that it is ambiguous whether or not someone in that plumber's situation is truly self-employed.

If this case is appealed, the Supreme Court could easily go the other way and decide that the plumber was self-employed.

Disputes about whether people should be classified as self-employed or as a worker are common and regularly hit the Employment Tribunal system. It is often a very difficult assessment to make, and very fact dependent so you cannot necessarily take the result of one case as demonstrating the result in another.

Fella

steampowered wrote: »

Frankly think this is just common sense. The idea that laws are passed by parliament, not by the prime minister, is pretty fundamental to the UK's constitutional settlement. Unless you want to live in a tinpot dictatorship we can't have the prime minister passing and revoking laws without a parliamentary vote.

Codswallop. We had a REFERENDUM & you're trying to compare implementing it's outcome with acting like a dictator? Don't make me laugh.

steampowered wrote: »

If the CEO of this company was a Brexit supporter your view on an identical case would be completely different. No wonder our politics are in such a mess when people would rather be tribal about things than deal with the actual facts of the issue in hand.

Again, what a ridiculous thing to say. If the CEO was a Brexit supporter then I wouldn't have posted because he wouldn't be a screaming hypocrite.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Fella wrote: »

Codswallop. We had a REFERENDUM & you're trying to compare implementing it's outcome with acting like a dictator? Don't make me laugh..

You can have a REFERENDUM about anything you like - but that doesn't change the fact it's illegal for the government to do some things on it's own without parliament voting on it first.

Triggering article 50 is one of those things.

Theresa May could have avoided the entire court case by simply giving parliament the vote 6 months ago.

Thrugelmir

steampowered wrote: »

I agree, that is why Pimlico Plumbers lost the case. The point is that it is ambiguous whether or not someone in that plumber's situation is truly self-employed.

Both an industrial tribunal and the High Court appear to find the position unambiguous. The appeal suggests that what's at stake is Pimlico's entire business model and the £1 million plus that Charlie takes in remuneration every year.

michaels

The courts have found that triggering article 50 is 'one of those things' the govt can not do, as foreign treaties are in the remit of govt action it was not untirely unreasonable to ask the question. If only we had a written constitution

The govt knew they would lose but went to court anyway. Rather than rehashing the rights and wrongs of the case, of more relevance for the future would be to know why the govt went to court.

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You can have a REFERENDUM about anything you like - but that doesn't change the fact it's illegal for the government to do some things on it's own without parliament voting on it first.

Let's not get carried away, we all know the facts & the are these

1. We were finally allowed a long-overdue referendum, albeit only because Cameron thought he had no political choice but to offer it.

2. We voted to leave.

3. Since then a large amount of Remain voters have tried everything on earth to delay, water down, or overturn the judgement. This included the legal challenge which should have been dismissed out of hand. The fact that the High court ruling was made by 3 judges, including one with a heavy vested interest in the EU & one who is a crony & ex-employee of uber-remainer Tony Blair might give a hint as to why they made the judgement they did. Technically this made it illegal for the Govt to proceed with Brexit without commons approval. Forgetting technicalities it was a simple attempt to game the system.

Happily it failed. Theresa May, despite being fairly unimpressive, has the great good fortune to have Corbyn as leader of the opposition. He's so inept that the general belief is if she calls a snap election it'll be a Tory landslide & half the current Labour MPs will be out of a job for 5 years. That's the only reason they backed Brexit. It doesn't take a genius to work out that had they blocked it we'd have had a snap election & the Tories would have had a large enough majority to do whatever they liked.

Going back to the original point though, we had a referendum & the result was clear. People can try to weasel out of it via the courts but generally those aren't the kind of people I have any time for.

Pennywise

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The Company likewise benefits and saves a lot of money. Ultimately it's the Treasury that loses out. At a time when NHS funding is a hot topic. Everybody paying their fair share of tax is high up the agenda.

Ironically, a lot of NHS "workers" also do the same, i.e. work under a limited company on a pseudo "self employed" basis to pay less tax and NIC.

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

Codswallop. We had a REFERENDUM & you're trying to compare implementing it's outcome with acting like a dictator? Don't make me laugh.

Yes. The referendum was called by an Act of parliament. It is up to parliament to implement the result of the referendum by changing the law accordingly.

For centuries, the UK has operated on the basis that parliament makes the law. The Prime Minister cannot and has never been able to revoke Acts of parliament.

I didn't see the question "Should the ability to pass laws move from parliament to the Prime Minister?" on the ballot paper.

Again, what a ridiculous thing to say. If the CEO was a Brexit supporter then I wouldn't have posted because he wouldn't be a screaming hypocrite.

As has already been pointed out to you, the rights at stake in this case were granted by domestic legislation and not by EU law.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Both an industrial tribunal and the High Court appear to find the position unambiguous. The appeal suggests that what's at stake is Pimlico's entire business model and the £1 million plus that Charlie takes in remuneration every year.

This doesn't make sense. Either someone is self-employed or they are not. There is no "could be either" option for the court to choose.

As I've pointed out, hundreds of cases about whether someone is self-employed or not reach the Employment Tribunal. A simple google search will tell you that - the difficulties of telling whether someone is employed or self-employed typically occupy the first few chapters of any employment law textbook, as it is a real grey area.

These are difficult cases and it is often very difficult to predict the result. It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court will overturn the Court of Appeal's decision.

It doesn't sink Pimlico's entire business model. If the decision stands, it would simply mean that plumbers who are currently treated as self-employed would be treated as employed instead.

I am sure both Pimlico and the plumbers will do just fine - the plumbers may get paid a bit less as a result of the additional national insurance payable on workers, and will no longer being able to off-set business expenses against their income tax bill, while they will get a few more perks such as a right to paid leave, but otherwise their salary and benefits will be largely the same.