My partner broke his leg when working

getmore4less

BikerMooFromMars said:

Jillanddy said:

BikerMooFromMars said:

General_Grant said:

lisyloo said:

General_Grant said:

"Working 'cash-in-hand'" isn't itself unlawful if by that you mean receiving cash for work done. 
However, the contractual relationship is important. 
Was Dom a worker for the "legitimate business" or self-employed?
Is he submitting a time-sheet or invoice?

No but it’s normally used to mean “off the books” for the purposes of not paying tax.

i think that’s what most posters inferred.

I know - and was 99.99% likely what the OP meant.

Nevertheless, if the injured party was self-employed he should have considered insurance.  And as it was at the end of doing some task, it could simply be he was not working at the time but could consider whether his own personal insurance provides some benefit for accidents.

Thanks, but unfortunately he wasn’t self employed, and he was working at the time - the guy he was working with couldn’t believe it, they were almost finished for the day. But no, it wasn’t anything contracted or in writing, he isn’t self employed, he was just trying to make ends meet for a week before Christmas, then he was to be starting a new job in January.

He’s had an awful lot of bad luck the past couple of years, he was furloughed for an awful long time not receiving full pay, didn’t get bonuses at work thanks to covid, got a promotion without a pay rise, tried to set up his own business, etc. He’s been very down because of it all. But it is what it is - I’m not here for sympathy, not looking to point fingers of blame, just a bit of financial advice really if there were any routes of support we could go down.

Thanks to all the helpful advice from people. Ignoring any negative/attacking comments - don’t really need any more negativity right now to be fair.

Thanks x

Sorry but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he was "working", as in, he had a contract of employment or any other formal agreement with this other person. So, at best, he was self-employed, in that he was not working for anyone else. And I don't think anyone was suggesting that you were looking for sympathy - but you didn't ask for "a bit of financial advice". Your query was very specific and asked whether you could claim on the insurance and "Does anyone know where we can find out if he can do this, and/or what he might be entitled to financially if so please?". So the responses were not negative or attacking, but responses to your actual question. If you ask whether you can claim against someone's insurance then of course there are going to be questions / comments about the status of the work he was allegedly undertaking, the basis upon which he was being paid and the legitimacy of the "employment". And of course all those things will impact on the likelihood of making such a claim against insurance. If you wanted general advice on benefits, then that would have elicited different responses, but you can hardly expect to ask a specific question and then get answers to entirely different questions that you didn't ask. 

You might find it useful to post a question about financial support available on the benefits board rather than here as there are people there who have great expertise on such matters. 

He did start a business to do contractual work self employed in the summer but the work he was offered fell through and he had issues with a course he paid £2.5k to complete. Not going into details here. I assume he wasn’t going to submit an invoice but I will speak to him later.

What happened to the insurance he set up for that business?

Would it have covered this line of work or maybe restricted to safer activities.

That's if he put in place loss of earnings insurance to cover being unable to work.

TELLIT01

elsien said:

He’s admitted to working cash in hand which is effectively tax avoidance. I strongly suggest you remove his photo and identifying details from your post. 

If the “friend” wasn’t willing to put him through the books for the same reason then he’s really not going to be keen to claim on his insurance, and the insurance may also not be willing to pay out in these circumstances. That’s what happens when you try to buck the system. 

Had he looked at what benefits he might be entitled to, and also whether he can take a mortgage holiday? 

Working 'cash in hand' is not automatically intended to be tax avoidance.  Often it is, but no always. For a one-off job it would be more hassle than it's worth for many employers to put an individual onto PAYE.  The person receiving the payment would be responsible for declaring the income. We had work done on the house, paid cash (i.e. cash in hand) but received a fully itemised receipt on headed notepaper.

lisyloo

Jillanddy said:

lisyloo said:

Perhaps you were wrong about what you posted and perhaps it would be better for everyone involved if he issued an invoice in arrears (like everyone does).

this isn’t meant to be negative but he should be aware that lots of questions get asked when claiming.
if he lies he could be in trouble.
if he tells the truth he could be in trouble.

I’d advise an invoice for the work.
as he’s broken his leg it would not be unsurprising if it was delayed.

I am not suggesting that anyone lies, but there is a middle course. I provided it on the first page. I was chatting to my mate, turned, slipped on wet grass and fell. Simple, truthful and nothing to trip anyone up. 

I meant when claiming benefits.
if he tells the truth about his recent work then both him and his boss will be in trouble (if we are correct to assume cash in hand means tax wasn’t paid by either party).
he can’t leave it out either because that makes a fraudulent benefit claim.

I've given the solution which is for him to submit his invoice and pay the tax.
i believe that side of things could be sorted retrospectively as would in fact usually happen.

theoretica

Under the small enterprise allowance, self employed takings of less than £1000 a tax year do not need to pay tax or submit a tax return.  For one week of work - depending on what happened the rest of the year - it is possible the tax is not an issue.

lisyloo

theoretica said:

Under the small enterprise allowance, self employed takings of less than £1000 a tax year do not need to pay tax or submit a tax return.  For one week of work - depending on what happened the rest of the year - it is possible the tax is not an issue.

If all tax, NI, H&S, liability insurance and company/trader registration is in place 
(and income over the year tracked) then then there may indeed be no issue.

Some professions do require mandatory liability insurance.

Smithcom

Lots of chatter about tax/national insurance/employment status etc.   This is possibly a red herring, as the courts will simply look to establish whether there was a 'master/servant' relationship.     If there was (a 'master/servant' relationship), then the operative will be deemed to be an employee, who will be entitled to all employment-related Health & Safety requirements.    If there was not (a 'master/servant' relationship), then the operative will be entitled to the Health & Safety considerations that are owed to any 3rd party.

If the operative was simply a 'hired hand', it is likely that a 'master/servant' relationship existed.   

Once the above has been established, it's a question of whether the 'employer' has been negligent.   If no negligence, then the employer is unlikely to owe any redress to the operative.  

As things stand now, the operative has three choices:

1. Let the matter drop  (which is a very likely outcome unless negligence can be established)
2. Request financial help from the 'employer'
3. Seek legal advice.   A solicitor will absolutely need to consider the issue of liability and if the operative was an 'employee' 

It's fairly straight forward.    The issue of tax/national insurance/employment status etc is very much a separate issue, notwithstanding the need to establish whether a 'master/servant' relationship existed.   

SC

BikerMooFromMars

Jillanddy said:

I think this is all disappearing down a rabbit hole. Can I suggest that if you want advice on the employment side of it (rather than the benefits side) that we go back to some basics, because I think it is getting confused because you don't have a clear idea about employment status. And this is going to be a very simplistic description...

Basically, you are a "worker" if someone else employs you and agrees a price for you doing some specific tasks. There are different types of workers, and for the kind of casual arrangement that you seem to be describing, it can be very difficult to prove your status as a worker without some evidence.

If you aren't a worker, then you are a sole trader / self-employed. That doesn't technically require "starting a business" or any kind of registration to prove it. If you aren't a worker of some kind, then you are this. Often, but not always, you would set your own rates of work and invoice someone - but some contractors may accept offered rates.

Now what I think (and I am ignoring what may or may not be "legal") is that your husband and his friend really meant it to be the latter - it was a friend helping out another friend, perhaps with a bit of a dodge, but that there was never intended to be an employment relationship. However, because everything seems to have been left unspoken, it is possible that these two friends strayed into territory that meant one may have been employing the other. In order to make a claim against the others insurance you will have to "sue" - you will, in the first instance, have to prove that he was working for the chap, and not simply there out of happenstance or as a self-employed person responsible for their own risks. It isn't as simple as the chap pops off to his insurers and they pay up. He could lose his business over this, he could end up in court or fined for breaches of the law. For sure, if this is a friend, he will soon be an ex-friend. 

Now I don't think either of them have covered themselves in glory here - they've both ignored the law and any sensible way of protecting their own interests. But I am not stupid - this sort of thing happens a lot, and it's what good mates do. At the very least, I do hope that BOTH of them realise how dodgy this is and how little they have protected their own interests, and don't do it again. If all this had been on the up and up, clearly set out, agreed and understood, then yes, there might have been a possibility of an accident (and it does seem it was an accident) resulting in some possible compensation - although frankly not nearly anything like the losses of four months wages. It's a hard way to learn the lesson. And it's a painful way to learn it - and I know that from personal experience because I have literally been there and broke my ankle / damaged my tendons, and had to have reconstructive surgery at a later stage. So I do sympathise actually. It's just that sympathy doesn't cut it when it comes to "what next". Unfortunately trying to take this further may make a bad situation much much worse - for both of them. Assuming it was an accident and not the result of negligence, I think it has to be chalked up to hard experience.

I haven’t read the rest of the comments yet - but this has been the most helpful reply to me. Thank you so much, and I’m sorry to hear something similar happened to you too. It really is rubbish! I didn’t realise it would require him to sue his friend either, I’ve just been told he could’ Liam off his mate’s insurance.’ I did imagine there may be repercussions for him potentially, but not to this extent.

I think to be honest my partner will do the same as what you did - chalk it up to a crappy experience and learn the lesson. He isn’t even keen to look at benefits despite otherwise having always worked hard and paid his taxes (I’m trying to convince him otherwise!). It was a one off and a lot of bad luck. 

I appreciate everyone who has taken time to reply with helpful advice, but it looks like this is what he will be doing.

Many thanks xx

ElefantEd

BikerMooFromMars said:

I think to be honest my partner will do the same as what you did - chalk it up to a crappy experience and learn the lesson. He isn’t even keen to look at benefits despite otherwise having always worked hard and paid his taxes (I’m trying to convince him otherwise!). It was a one off and a lot of bad luck. 

I appreciate everyone who has taken time to reply with helpful advice, but it looks like this is what he will be doing.

Many thanks xx

Benefits are there partly as a safety net for circumstances like these - in effect it's insurance from the government, paid for by taxation/NI (though these are effectively the same thing). So he shouldn't feel bad about claiming them any more than he would about claiming from his car insurance in the event of an accident.

lisyloo

Smithcom said:

Lots of chatter about tax/national insurance/employment status etc.   This is possibly a red herring, as the courts will simply look to establish whether there lwas a 'master/servant' relationship.     If there was (a 'master/servant' relationship), then the operative will be deemed to be an employee, who will be entitled to all employment-related Health & Safety requirements.    If there was not (a 'master/servant' relationship), then the operative will be entitled to the Health & Safety considerations that are owed to any 3rd party.

If the operative was simply a 'hired hand', it is likely that a 'master/servant' relationship existed.   

Once the above has been established, it's a question of whether the 'employer' has been negligent.   If no negligence, then the employer is unlikely to owe any redress to the operative.  

As things stand now, the operative has three choices:

1. Let the matter drop  (which is a very likely outcome unless negligence can be established)
2. Request financial help from the 'employer'
3. Seek legal advice.   A solicitor will absolutely need to consider the issue of liability and if the operative was an 'employee' 

It's fairly straight forward.    The issue of tax/national insurance/employment status etc is very much a separate issue, notwithstanding the need to establish whether a 'master/servant' relationship existed.   

SC

That’s because we are talking about different issues I think.

one is claiming negligence (the Op has said they are not interested in that).

the other is the potential “cash in hand” issues which may come to light if a benefit claim is made because they will want to know “the ins and outs of a cats ar**).

You appear to be talking about the former? When the op has confirmed they are not interested in that. 

Smithcom

lisyloo said:

That’s because we are talking about different issues I think.

one is claiming negligence (the Op has said they are not interested in that).

the other is the potential “cash in hand” issues which may come to light if a benefit claim is made because they will want to know “the ins and outs of a cats ar**).

You appear to be talking about the former? When the op has confirmed they are not interested in that. 

Thanks Lisyloo - I can see that you are spot on.

The OP said that they are not interesting in litigation, and whether or not this is factual (it's amazing how often things start off in such a way, but suddenly end up in a legal situation), it's worthwhile exploring the various scenarios that exist.   Hopefully my thoughts above give some useful information, even if only as commentary.  

I'm not informed enough to make comment re benefits/government assistance.

SC