Legality of Martin Lewis's advice

jfinnie

That is pretty perverse...!
I'm not sure the direction existed when Martin recorded his video based on the dates in question (31/Mar vs 15/Apr), so perhaps he was working with less than complete information; hence it would be interesting to see what his current interpretation of working in this way is. 

leitmotif

Jeremy535897 said:

If it weren't for paragraph 2.5 of the Directive, I think it does.

Hmm. But without 6.2 and 13.4, I'm not sure what else to ground 2.5 in. 2.5 can't stand alone. There needs to be, somewhere within the provisions, guidance on what constitutes abuse. In the absence thereof, it's simply the aforementioned strategic ambiguity.

Jeremy535897

jfinnie said:

That is pretty perverse...!
I'm not sure the direction existed when Martin recorded his video based on the dates in question (31/Mar vs 15/Apr), so perhaps he was working with less than complete information; hence it would be interesting to see what his current interpretation of working in this way is. 

Yes, I made that point earlier.

leitmotif said:

Jeremy535897 said:

If it weren't for paragraph 2.5 of the Directive, I think it does.

Hmm. But without 6.2 and 13.4, I'm not sure what else to ground 2.5 in. 2.5 can't stand alone. There needs to be, somewhere within the provisions, guidance on what constitutes abuse. In the absence thereof, it's simply the aforementioned strategic ambiguity.

Yes. That's how general anti avoidance provisions work, to discourage the things they may not have thought of. If they read all this, who knows if they will add something specific?

Grumpy_chap

Something seems not quite right here.

In this thread, the OP (leitmotif the individual) seems to want to be furloughed by their own company (Leitmotif Limited) and then carry on doing work as a self employed sole trader so that the 'not working for the company' criteria is satisfied.  For the OP to do work as self employed there has to be work coming in.

In another thread "Closing date for furlough applications", the same OP seems to want to be furloughed backdated from when orders stop coming in on 10 March and all work ceases by the end of that day and there is absolutely no orders or communications from customers in the interim.

The situation in both these threads can't both apply.

leitmotif

Grumpy_chap said:

Something seems not quite right here.

In this thread, the OP (leitmotif the individual) seems to want to be furloughed by their own company (Leitmotif Limited) and then carry on doing work as a self employed sole trader so that the 'not working for the company' criteria is satisfied.  For the OP to do work as self employed there has to be work coming in.

In another thread "Closing date for furlough applications", the same OP seems to want to be furloughed backdated from when orders stop coming in on 10 March and all work ceases by the end of that day and there is absolutely no orders or communications from customers in the interim.

The situation in both these threads can't both apply.

The 10 March date featured in a hypothetical example. Everything you've read in both threads is hypothetical. Hypotheticals don't need to be consistent with one another precisely because they're hypothetical.

Grumpy_chap

Well, that's good to know that these are just hypothetical situations you came up with - I did not find that clear from either thread to be honest.

So, while there are people in real concern and worry about issues, all the effort to this thread (5 pages) plus the other thread (7 pages) is just for some hypothetical things you were querying for the sake of it.

leitmotif

Grumpy_chap said:

Well, that's good to know that these are just hypothetical situations you came up with - I did not find that clear from either thread to be honest.

So, while there are people in real concern and worry about issues, all the effort to this thread (5 pages) plus the other thread (7 pages) is just for some hypothetical things you were querying for the sake of it.

Nobody forced you to contribute.

markh1965

If doubtful of Martin Lewis,s advice then why join his web site,just pay a solicitor and get the advice you want to hear,pretty basic.

leitmotif

markh1965 said:

If doubtful of Martin Lewis,s advice then why join his web site,just pay a solicitor and get the advice you want to hear,pretty basic.

Firstly, I'm doubting a specific piece of advice, not his advice in general. Secondly, it makes sense to question that advice on his site, for two reasons: 1) the people who see his advice are on his site, and so there's a good chance they might visit the forum too and see that it's questionable; and 2) Martin or a member of his staff might read this and revise the advice.

koru

leitmotif said:... 2) Martin or a member of his staff might read this and revise the advice.

Or explain why the apparent flaws in the advice are not a concern.