Taxi Driver

StarlightSky

Hello,
I'm asking on behalf of my uncle, so sorry if the details aren't quite correct first time.
My uncle is (was?) a taxi driver before COVID hit. He worked for a firm, but he was classed as self employed (I think). He wasn't eligible for the first furlough scheme (not exactly sure why, I think it had something to do with his earnings the year before?). However he's now really struggling, and he's wondering if there is any other help available? His boss has told him that there is a possibility that he could return to work, but he isn't allowed to have another driver (he owns the car and when he isn't working someone else uses it) and he has to increase his hours - and even then it's not guaranteed, depending on how many other drivers want to return.
Could anyone point me towards something that he might be able to do? His savings are running out very quickly and he feels stuck.
Thank you.

Jeremy535897

You need to establish some more facts, but there are also some misunderstandings here.
He cannot work for a firm, and be self employed. Presumably you mean he was on the books of one firm, and they are the only ones who gave him work?
As self employed he couldn't be furloughed. It sounds more like you mean he wasn't eligible for the self employed grant, perhaps because other income exceeded self employment income in 2018/19 (and previously)?
As self employed he doesn't have a "boss". He has a customer. One of the badges of trade (indications of self employment) is that someone else can be substituted for him to do the work, but apparently he can't? If he owns the car, surely he decides when he can use it, or has he entered into some sort of rental arrangement with someone else?
What sort of permit does he have? Presumably private hire?

It looks as if he needs to take control and either find someone else who can give him the work he needs, or get enough work from his "boss".

StarlightSky

Jeremy535897 said:

You need to establish some more facts, but there are also some misunderstandings here.
He cannot work for a firm, and be self employed. Presumably you mean he was on the books of one firm, and they are the only ones who gave him work?
As self employed he couldn't be furloughed. It sounds more like you mean he wasn't eligible for the self employed grant, perhaps because other income exceeded self employment income in 2018/19 (and previously)?
As self employed he doesn't have a "boss". He has a customer. One of the badges of trade (indications of self employment) is that someone else can be substituted for him to do the work, but apparently he can't? If he owns the car, surely he decides when he can use it, or has he entered into some sort of rental arrangement with someone else?
What sort of permit does he have? Presumably private hire?

It looks as if he needs to take control and either find someone else who can give him the work he needs, or get enough work from his "boss".

Thanks for the reply. You're right, I do need some more information so thanks again for replying even though I don't know much about the situation.

I've asked my Mum (his sister) for some more information. From her understanding, he rents items from a taxi company (for which he pays a fee) but he is self employed (as he provides the car, I suppose). He applied for the self employed grant but as he has a pension it wasn't accepted. He has a permit through the council, along with the rights to work on the rank.

He can't work when he wants because the jobs come through the meter and the system which he rents. If he only does the hours he wants, the boss of the company will refuse to allow him to rent them any more.

MalMonroe

Jeremy535897 said:

You need to establish some more facts, but there are also some misunderstandings here.
He cannot work for a firm, and be self employed. Presumably you mean he was on the books of one firm, and they are the only ones who gave him work?
As self employed he couldn't be furloughed. It sounds more like you mean he wasn't eligible for the self employed grant, perhaps because other income exceeded self employment income in 2018/19 (and previously)?
As self employed he doesn't have a "boss". He has a customer. One of the badges of trade (indications of self employment) is that someone else can be substituted for him to do the work, but apparently he can't? If he owns the car, surely he decides when he can use it, or has he entered into some sort of rental arrangement with someone else?
What sort of permit does he have? Presumably private hire?

It looks as if he needs to take control and either find someone else who can give him the work he needs, or get enough work from his "boss".

That's not strictly true, what you say about not being able to work for a company when you are self employed. My daughter does that very thing.  She's paid by the company for her work in the usual way of an employee but she submits her own tax return to HMRC and pays her own NI as well. She's treated as an employee in every way but she doesn't get paid for holidays because she remains self-employed.

The OP's uncle could very well have a similar arrangement. It isn't unusual.

Yahoo_Mail

MalMonroe said:

Jeremy535897 said:

You need to establish some more facts, but there are also some misunderstandings here.
He cannot work for a firm, and be self employed. Presumably you mean he was on the books of one firm, and they are the only ones who gave him work?
As self employed he couldn't be furloughed. It sounds more like you mean he wasn't eligible for the self employed grant, perhaps because other income exceeded self employment income in 2018/19 (and previously)?
As self employed he doesn't have a "boss". He has a customer. One of the badges of trade (indications of self employment) is that someone else can be substituted for him to do the work, but apparently he can't? If he owns the car, surely he decides when he can use it, or has he entered into some sort of rental arrangement with someone else?
What sort of permit does he have? Presumably private hire?

It looks as if he needs to take control and either find someone else who can give him the work he needs, or get enough work from his "boss".

That's not strictly true, what you say about not being able to work for a company when you are self employed. My daughter does that very thing.  She's paid by the company for her work in the usual way of an employee but she submits her own tax return to HMRC and pays her own NI as well. She's treated as an employee in every way but she doesn't get paid for holidays because she remains self-employed.

The OP's uncle could very well have a similar arrangement. It isn't unusual.

Please stop with the bad advice.

If your daughter is doing that then her "employer" is breaking the law.  She can't be an employee and self-employed for the same role.
Sounds like they're requiring her to be "self-employed" so they can avoid the tax implications and employee rights.  She should quit, or tell the taxman about their fiddle.

Why haven't you been banned yet for this dangerously bad advice you keep dishing out?

Jeremy535897

StarlightSky said:

Jeremy535897 said:

You need to establish some more facts, but there are also some misunderstandings here.
He cannot work for a firm, and be self employed. Presumably you mean he was on the books of one firm, and they are the only ones who gave him work?
As self employed he couldn't be furloughed. It sounds more like you mean he wasn't eligible for the self employed grant, perhaps because other income exceeded self employment income in 2018/19 (and previously)?
As self employed he doesn't have a "boss". He has a customer. One of the badges of trade (indications of self employment) is that someone else can be substituted for him to do the work, but apparently he can't? If he owns the car, surely he decides when he can use it, or has he entered into some sort of rental arrangement with someone else?
What sort of permit does he have? Presumably private hire?

It looks as if he needs to take control and either find someone else who can give him the work he needs, or get enough work from his "boss".

Thanks for the reply. You're right, I do need some more information so thanks again for replying even though I don't know much about the situation.

I've asked my Mum (his sister) for some more information. From her understanding, he rents items from a taxi company (for which he pays a fee) but he is self employed (as he provides the car, I suppose). He applied for the self employed grant but as he has a pension it wasn't accepted. He has a permit through the council, along with the rights to work on the rank.

He can't work when he wants because the jobs come through the meter and the system which he rents. If he only does the hours he wants, the boss of the company will refuse to allow him to rent them any more.

You can be self employed and only have one provider of work, as Deliveroo drivers know. There are "badges of trade" that indicate whether you are employed or self employed. One factor is whether you provide your own equipment, like a car, but I was raising the issue as it is important to understanding what may be available. I suspected there might be a pension receipt causing problems for SEISS.

As I said, he has to take control. Two things are causing an issue:

• difficulties in the level of work offered
• letting someone else use the car

I think he has to take control of both the car and the work.

Grumpy_chap

Does the OP normally get involved in providing financial advice to his Uncle?  I don't think that is common.

Anyway, that aside, the Uncle is struggling financially with savings running out and wonders whether there is any help available.  The taxi firm where the Uncle works have said they can only give the Uncle work if he increases his hours.  It seems the obvious solution is that the Uncle works all the hours he possibly can for the taxi firm and generates his own income.  Problem solved.

Perhaps there is something I missed?

simongregson

One of the rights of a self employed person is to provide a substitute to carry out work if they like. So he could accept all the hours and then contract his other driver himself to carry out the additional work. If the taxi firm refused this they can't argue that he is self employed.

Jeremy535897

simongregson said:

One of the rights of a self employed person is to provide a substitute to carry out work if they like. So he could accept all the hours and then contract his other driver himself to carry out the additional work. If the taxi firm refused this they can't argue that he is self employed.

This is a misunderstanding. There are tests that help decide whether a person is self employed or employed, and one of these is whether that person must provide the service themselves (indicates employment), or whether they can substitute another person in their place (indicates self employment). All the tests are looked at together, not one in isolation, and self employed people do not have an automatic "right" to send a substitute. It depends on what the contract says. HMRC's current view is:

"Checking if they’re exempt from PAYE

Someone is probably self-employed and shouldn’t be paid through PAYE if most of the following are true:

• they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
• they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
• they can hire someone else to do the work
• they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
• their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
• they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
• they can work for more than one client"

simongregson

Jeremy535897 said:

simongregson said:

One of the rights of a self employed person is to provide a substitute to carry out work if they like. So he could accept all the hours and then contract his other driver himself to carry out the additional work. If the taxi firm refused this they can't argue that he is self employed.

This is a misunderstanding. There are tests that help decide whether a person is self employed or employed, and one of these is whether that person must provide the service themselves (indicates employment), or whether they can substitute another person in their place (indicates self employment). All the tests are looked at together, not one in isolation, and self employed people do not have an automatic "right" to send a substitute. It depends on what the contract says. HMRC's current view i

I'm not disagreeing with you but it is worth knowing this as it sounds as if there are a number of other obligations that the driver had that would indicate they may well be classified as a worker, such as working a minimum number of hours, at a particular time, or having to rent particular equipment and charge specified fees. The 'substitute' test is one of the main ones used, and entire cases have been decided on the basis of whether this term is met. There are lots of cases of taxi drivers being deemed to be workers rather than self employed e.g. this one https://www.freelanceuk.com/news/16586-‘self-employed’-taxi-driver-picks-both-‘worker’-and-‘employee’-status.shtml
I think it is quite common for the taxi firms to want to exert a degree of control that is not compatible with being engaged as a self employed person , not understanding that although there might be advantages for their cost base they will lose some of the control they might want to exert.

Dr_Crypto

The employment status of taxi drivers is something that even the Supreme Court is going to struggle to decide. Or will be when the Uber case gets there. 
Historically I suspect they have generally been thought of as self-employed and they simply rent the circuit from the taxi firm. Whether they really are self-employed is another matter but the taxi firm can't order them to work on any given day or given time nor are they obliged to pick up a particular fare. They can also work more than one taxi circuit and do "private jobs".