Furlough Scheme

uksaint70

Good Afternoon, I watched the show last night and currently I am in the same position as a lady whos questioned was answered in regard to leaving her job, technically today is my last day with the firm. I emailed them this morning to ask about remploy as the job i was looking to go into was in a school, so currently as with alot of people no idea when this will start. I asked them if they could help me in regard to the current climate using the furlough scheme.
The email i got back stated as follows:

Unfortunately your leaving date was notified along with reason for leaving on the HMRC RTI system on 16th March. This means that they are already aware of your decision to resign.The accountant has advised that we would therefore remploying not continuing employment and doing that to furlough is against the rules as it can only be done if you were laid off because of the virus.

I am really sorry that this is not better news but my hands are tied by the HMRC system in this instance.

Is this correct as per Martins show last night, i'm sure its not, if so what can I do ?

sharpe106

Yes that is correct. The scheme is to protect jobs that have been lost or at risk of being lost due to the virus. Yours was not you volunteered to leave. You do not meet the criteria.      

nick74

That's not correct, the RTI system does not send a reason for leaving to HMRC and under the furlough rules there is no reason technically why your previous employer cannot put you back on their payroll system temporarily and then furlough you. However, that is entirely at their discretion and you cant force a previous employer to do it if they don't want to. 

InA

nick74 said:

That's not correct, the RTI system does not send a reason for leaving to HMRC and under the furlough rules there is no reason technically why your previous employer cannot put you back on their payroll system temporarily and then furlough you. However, that is entirely at their discretion and you cant force a previous employer to do it if they don't want to. 

This is a Job Retention Scheme for employers not an income protection scheme for workers. "Temporarily" adding a former employee back on payroll in order to claim a grant would likely be viewed as fraudulent.

janet_ryall123

Hello was wondering if you can give me some advice. I have worked for the council for the past three years and my contract ends 31st March. At the moment I am self isolating. Do you think I would be able to apply for the furlough scheme? 

nick74

InA said:

nick74 said:

That's not correct, the RTI system does not send a reason for leaving to HMRC and under the furlough rules there is no reason technically why your previous employer cannot put you back on their payroll system temporarily and then furlough you. However, that is entirely at their discretion and you cant force a previous employer to do it if they don't want to. 

This is a Job Retention Scheme for employers not an income protection scheme for workers. "Temporarily" adding a former employee back on payroll in order to claim a grant would likely be viewed as fraudulent.

As an employer who has spent most of the past two days reading every possible piece of information I can find on this scheme, and discussing it with our legal advisors, I can see nothing whatsoever to prevent an employer doing what the OP is suggesting. In fact we are considering doing exactly that for a number of our former employees. What evidence do you have that it would be considered fraudulent? 

sharpe106

nick74 said:

InA said:

nick74 said:

That's not correct, the RTI system does not send a reason for leaving to HMRC and under the furlough rules there is no reason technically why your previous employer cannot put you back on their payroll system temporarily and then furlough you. However, that is entirely at their discretion and you cant force a previous employer to do it if they don't want to. 

This is a Job Retention Scheme for employers not an income protection scheme for workers. "Temporarily" adding a former employee back on payroll in order to claim a grant would likely be viewed as fraudulent.

As an employer who has spent most of the past two days reading every possible piece of information I can find on this scheme, and discussing it with our legal advisors, I can see nothing whatsoever to prevent an employer doing what the OP is suggesting. In fact we are considering doing exactly that for a number of our former employees. What evidence do you have that it would be considered fraudulent? 

Taken from the government website

 Furloughed workers

If you and your employer both agree, your employer might be able to keep you on the payroll if they’re unable to operate or have no work for you to do because of coronavirus (COVID-19). This is known as being ‘on furlough’.

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-guidance-for-employees

                                                                              

 

The company is not unable to operate or has no work for them, they have decided to leave. Them leaving has nothing to do with the coronavirus so rehiring them to then claim for them is fraud, claiming for something that you are not entitled to. As it is for claiming any benefit.

 Look at it from the company point of view the person has left they re-employ them what happens at the end of the time and OP decides they no longer want to leave.

nick74

sharpe106 said:

nick74 said:

InA said:

nick74 said:

That's not correct, the RTI system does not send a reason for leaving to HMRC and under the furlough rules there is no reason technically why your previous employer cannot put you back on their payroll system temporarily and then furlough you. However, that is entirely at their discretion and you cant force a previous employer to do it if they don't want to. 

This is a Job Retention Scheme for employers not an income protection scheme for workers. "Temporarily" adding a former employee back on payroll in order to claim a grant would likely be viewed as fraudulent.

As an employer who has spent most of the past two days reading every possible piece of information I can find on this scheme, and discussing it with our legal advisors, I can see nothing whatsoever to prevent an employer doing what the OP is suggesting. In fact we are considering doing exactly that for a number of our former employees. What evidence do you have that it would be considered fraudulent? 

Taken from the government website

 Furloughed workers

If you and your employer both agree, your employer might be able to keep you on the payroll if they’re unable to operate or have no work for you to do because of coronavirus (COVID-19). This is known as being ‘on furlough’.

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-guidance-for-employees

                                                                              

 

The company is not unable to operate or has no work for them, they have decided to leave. Them leaving has nothing to do with the coronavirus so rehiring them to then claim for them is fraud, claiming for something that you are not entitled to. As it is for claiming any benefit.

 Look at it from the company point of view the person has left they re-employ them what happens at the end of the time and OP decides they no longer want to leave.

There are rumours (and I accept they are currently only rumours) coming from the government that in the final detailed rules of the scheme the reason for leaving the previous employment will be made irrelevent. The intention of the government was never to allow people who coincidentally happened to change jobs in March to 'fall between the cracks' in the scheme.I appreciate your point that the current general guidance does not say that however. 

Jeremy535897

From Government guidance to employees:

"If you were made redundant after 28 February

Your employer can agree to re-employ you and place you on furlough instead. They’ll still be able to claim a grant to cover 80% of your monthly earnings, up to a monthly cap of £2,500."

If they could rehire anyone who left voluntarily, however long ago, and for whatever reason, why does it say "if you were made redundant"?

Having said that, other threads are suggesting that public pressure may get a change. I really don't know.

nick74

..but (playing devil's advocate a little) nowhere does it say 'if you weren't made redundant, you can't.' In my experience the government tend to make the wording of these type of releases slightly ambiguous so that they can go back and tweak the specific details later. 

Ultimately we've got to wait for the definitive rules though. Not pleasant at the moment as we took on ten new employees in March before this scheme was even mentioned, and are curently not expecting to be able to claim a penny for them.

Jeremy535897

It seems obvious to me, but I've been proved wrong before, and I agree with your post.