Asked to help defraud the furlough scheme

[Carl Nixon]

My son in law has been asked to go back in to work today, which he has done. However, when he got to work, him and his team were asked not to clock in or out. The boss is basically claiming on the furlough scheme and having them work. He will pay them the extra 20% on top of the governments 80%. Obviously none of this is down on paper or on email. The business owner was smart enough to not mention it any calls either - my son in law only found out the plan when he turned up.

He is a valet in a large car dealership and he has bad asthma. So, he is at higher risk if he gets the virus (but not on any sort of extra risk list). He also faces the problem that breathing through PPE causes his Asthma problems. So he would rather not work and just take the 80% furlough money.

The company is laying it on thick that if they dont do it, they will go bust - knowing a bit about the history of the company, it wouldnt surprise me if it was true.

Does anyone know what his options are?

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

I was talking to a solicitor working in tax and revenue last week
She said that the government will be going after anybody abusing the scheme
700 odd companies have already been reported for allegedly braking the rules
One thing that you must not do is have workers working in any shape or form while being furloughed
I would report them to HMRC

 

[Mr D]

My son in law has been asked to go back in to work today, which he has done. However, when he got to work, him and his team were asked not to clock in or out. The boss is basically claiming on the furlough scheme and having them work. He will pay them the extra 20% on top of the governments 80%. Obviously none of this is down on paper or on email. The business owner was smart enough to not mention it any calls either - my son in law only found out the plan when he turned up.

He is a valet in a large car dealership and he has bad asthma. So, he is at higher risk if he gets the virus (but not on any sort of extra risk list). He also faces the problem that breathing through PPE causes his Asthma problems. So he would rather not work and just take the 80% furlough money.

The company is laying it on thick that if they dont do it, they will go bust - knowing a bit about the history of the company, it wouldnt surprise me if it was true.

Does anyone know what his options are?

If they do it the odds are they are going to go bust.

Plus have HMRC after the directors too.

 

[Ian J]

Does anyone know what his options are?

Yes. He can either be complicit in a fraud or he can refuse

 

[Carl Nixon]

@Mr D - I could easily imagine seeing the owner's name in a news report that would also contain phrases like "phoenix scheme". He is that type of character.

@Ian J - This would be my initial reaction as well. The owner has made sure there is zero evidence of his scheme and is the sort of person who will fire him (and the rest of his team) and worry about wrongful dismissal cases later on. He is one of those bosses that constantly break the rules and either gets away with it or pays it off in some way at some point down the road.

At the moment, I have told him to gather proof he is in work each day - even if it means taking a selfie holding the daily newspaper. He is also going to try to record any conversations with his bosses.

 

[Mr D]

@Mr D - I could easily imagine seeing the owner's name in a news report that would also contain phrases like "phoenix scheme". He is that type of character.

@Ian J - This would be my initial reaction as well. The owner has made sure there is zero evidence of his scheme and is the sort of person who will fire him (and the rest of his team) and worry about wrongful dismissal cases later on. He is one of those bosses that constantly break the rules and either gets away with it or pays it off in some way at some point down the road.

At the moment, I have told him to gather proof he is in work each day - even if it means taking a selfie holding the daily newspaper. He is also going to try to record any conversations with his bosses.

He can phoenix, that is legal if done in the right fashion.
Doesn't make what he is doing any less illegal though.

As regards photos, perhaps a photo of the car he's working on occasionally. From a vantage point such that its obvious its being worked on.
If that car is later moved elsewhere or sold then a photo at that site is pretty damning that you were there to take a photo while the car was...

 

[Carl Nixon]

Very true Mr D - I just wouldnt be surprised if he phoenixed on the wrong side of the law. Despite being a major car dealership in this area, they are regularly featured on consumer shows in this area. Its not scientific proof, just a gut feeling about him after reading years of reports about his business methods.

Photographing cars makes it very traceable - I suspect HMRC could easily talk to the DVLA to find out when the cars were in the possession of the company. (These are cars they have bought and my son-in-law is getting ready for selling). Thanks, I will suggest that as well

 

[Ian J]

The owner has made sure there is zero evidence of his scheme

Then at least your son in law will be in the clear if the boss gets his collar felt

 

[Carl Nixon]

Then at least your son in law will be in the clear if the boss gets his collar felt

You may have hit on the odd and worrying part of the story, that doesnt fully add up to me. Why did he explain it to the employees at all? Why didnt he just delete the clocking in and clocking out data without telling them?

Has he tried to make the employees complicit in someway so they cant report him?

 

[Porky]

Sounds like a lot of 2+2 making 22 here. The employer may or may not claim anything under furlough, if he does the claim its between the employer and the revenue. If they later audit and that’s highly likely, and find he has claimed when he shouldn’t of, he will will have to pay back any grant taken and could be fined etc.etc but the employee isn’t responsible it’s not the employee claiming, it’s the employer.

Furthermore, do you really think despite all the scaremongering the revenue are going to go after employees in a small company? In a small two bit body shop? Not being funny but yes they might reclaim and go after the directors if at all, but beyond that? Really?

Unless it’s some major fraud involving hundreds of thousands with hundreds of staff involved it would cost more than it’s worth. Your lad really hasn’t got anything to worry about imo. His bigger worry will be getting another job if it closes down, as soon as things settle he should probably see what other opportunities are about.

Wish you all well, these are challenging times

 

[Ian J]

do you really think despite all the scaremongering the revenue are going to go after employees in a small company? In a small two bit body shop?

Firstly the OP has stated that it's a large car dealership and not a "two bit bodyshop" and secondly HMRC have history of going after smaller companies and ignoring the major concerns who they should be going after

 

[Bob Morgan]

HMRC will have already have this logged via 'Connect!' - Even here!

 

[Bob Morgan]

Then at least your son in law will be in the clear if the boss gets his collar felt

If you believe that, you'll 'Stand for Egg Under't Cap!'

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

HMRC will have already have this logged via 'Connect!' - Even here!

Yes Bob it has been mentioned a few time that they follow us !

Hello HMRC hows is all going up there today ?
Hope you are all well

 

[Carl Nixon]

@Porky - It is a major car dealership in Cardiff and a well-known name across the South Wales area. They regularly advertise on the radio (sometimes TV) that they have about a thousand cars in stock and I suspect they employ 60-120 people.

He is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He can report the business and lose his job, or go along with it and risk his own fallout from HMRC. At the moment there is no shred of evidence he can give HRMC to prove this is what the company has said - the company has been very careful and there is nothing on email, paper of even on a phone call to say this is what they want him to do. He was told verbally, in person, by his manager and that is it.

At, the moment I'm advising him to gather evidence as and when he can and to find work elsewhere ASAP. He can take it to HMRC then.

However, his biggest concern is his health and having to wear PPE for long periods of time. He has really bad asthma and stuck wearing a mask for hours at a time could trigger a major attack. He is also at higher risk from the virus if he catches it. So he would rather not go in and just take the 80% provided by the government at no cost to the business. The business is unwilling to do this, forcing him into work and wearing PPE - both of which are a danger to his health.

If HMRC are reading this, please DM me, and if you can assure me there will be no repercussions for my son-in-law, I'm happy to name the garage for you.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

@Porky - It is a major car dealership in Cardiff and a well-known name across the South Wales area. They regularly advertise on the radio (sometimes TV) that they have about a thousand cars in stock and I suspect they employ 60-120 people

I know Carl I know who you mean Cardiff is my second home !

 

[Carl Nixon]

I know Carl I know who you mean Cardiff is my second home !

LOL It doesnt take much guessing from those clues does it. If you ever look for a car in South Wales, the garage is almost impossible to avoid.

 

[Newchodge]

There is an online reporting method to tell HMRC about fraud. Stupidly, it requires the details of the reporter.

 

[Bob Morgan]

There is an online reporting method to tell HMRC about fraud. Stupidly, it requires the details of the reporter.

Even if it were anonymous, they would know who it was! - This is HMRC just attempting to be 'Polite!'

 

[Mr D]

Firstly the OP has stated that it's a large car dealership and not a "two bit bodyshop" and secondly HMRC have history of going after smaller companies and ignoring the major concerns who they should be going after

Perhaps the major concerns too often prove to be doing exactly what they should be doing.
Such as the biggest UK tax investigation that took 6 years and turned out to be based on ideology not facts? Cost a fortune to do and found only minor issues.
Because people wanted HMRC going after major concerns!

 

[Mr D]

There is an online reporting method to tell HMRC about fraud. Stupidly, it requires the details of the reporter.

So can evaluate the intelligence provided.

Sour grapes, fantasist, someone in a position to know?

 

[Bob Morgan]

Perhaps the major concerns too often prove to be doing exactly what they should be doing.
Such as the biggest UK tax investigation that took 6 years and turned out to be based on ideology not facts? Cost a fortune to do and found only minor issues.
Because people wanted HMRC going after major concerns!

Whereas, HMRC Connect gives them a £1 BILLION windfall every year, based upon 'Stupdity!'

 

[Mr D]

Whereas, HMRC Connect gives them a £1 BILLION windfall every year, based upon 'Stupdity!'

Then it's HMRC who need investigation. What do NAO report about this windfall?

 

[Bob Morgan]

Then it's HMRC who need investigation. What do NAO report about this windfall?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_(computer_system) Very simply, if a person in the UK puts an advertisement on AirB&B without declaring the income, HMRC will know about it! It tracks every taxpayer - Who they receive money from, and who they pay money to. Information is also obtained and cross-referenced from numerous Government Databases and it then begins to associate 'Connections!' It has been around from 2010, and most people do not even know that it exists! It is one of the few pieces of Government Commissioned Software, that makes money! - Up to £1 BILLION each year!

 

[ecommerce84]

@Carl Nixon - I know exactly who you mean from your description! And I’m not overly surprised to hear of their intentions.

 

[Mr D]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_(computer_system) Very simply, if a person in the UK puts an advertisement on AirB&B without declaring the income, HMRC will know about it! It tracks every taxpayer - Who they receive money from, and who they pay money to. Information is also obtained and cross-referenced from numerous Government Databases and it then begins to associate 'Connections!' It has been around from 2010, and most people do not even know that it exists! It is one of the few pieces of Government Commissioned Software, that makes money! - Up to £1 BILLION each year!

So how do HMRC give this £1 billion away to those major concerns?

 

[Bob Morgan]

So how do HMRC give this £1 billion away to those major concerns?

Why not ask them? - No doubt they 'Drop-In' here at UKBF from time-to-time?

 

[Mr D]

Why not ask them? - No doubt they 'Drop-In' here at UKBF from time-to-time?

So you Chuck in some wild comment about HMRC giving away money but cannot give more details.

 

[Bob Morgan]

So you Chuck in some wild comment about HMRC giving away money but cannot give more details.

Probably because I never mentioned HMRC 'giving away money!'

 

[Mr D]

Probably because I never mentioned HMRC 'giving away money!'

So you didn't type this?

Whereas, HMRC Connect gives them a £1 BILLION windfall every year, based upon 'Stupdity!'

We were talking about

Firstly the OP has stated that it's a large car dealership and not a "two bit bodyshop" and secondly HMRC have history of going after smaller companies and ignoring the major concerns who they should be going after

Now in the context of what was posted what exactly did you think you were meaning and who did you refer to being given a windfall?
But of course you didn't mean HMRC giving away money. Yeah, right.

 

[Awinner2]

Well, I know of a business owner who has furloughed staff including his son, the General Manager. Son now goes regularly to do gardening work and has taken a wedding booking for 2021 after doing a virtual tour for a wedding venue prospect. Working in my view. But the same owner regularly dips into the till cash takings to pay his son cash in hand to top up his 25k annual salary! All will be reported to HMRC by another ex-staff member shortly.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

So you didn't type this?



We were talking about



Now in the context of what was posted what exactly did you think you were meaning and who did you refer to being given a windfall?
But of course you didn't mean HMRC giving away money. Yeah, right.

So you didn't type this?

As much as I wouldn’t want to defend Bob, I think he meant that HMRC get £1bn from connect

 

[Bob Morgan]

So you didn't type this?



We were talking about



Now in the context of what was posted what exactly did you think you were meaning and who did you refer to being given a windfall?
But of course you didn't mean HMRC giving away money. Yeah, right.

'HMRC Connect' THE SOFTWARE COMMISSIONED AND RUN BY HMRC achieves a 'Windfall' FOR HMRC of £1 BILLION! - Clear now?

 

[Newchodge]

'HMRC Connect' THE SOFTWARE COMMISSIONED AND RUN BY HMRC achieves a 'Windfall' FOR HMRC of £1 BILLION! - Clear now?

A sentence without context means nothing.

HMRC Connect' THE SOFTWARE COMMISSIONED AND RUN BY HMRC costs HMRC £1 BILLION!

How does anyone choose which to believe?

 

[Mr D]

'HMRC Connect' THE SOFTWARE COMMISSIONED AND RUN BY HMRC achieves a 'Windfall' FOR HMRC of £1 BILLION! - Clear now?

Would have helped if you had put it that simply to start with.

Rather than going off on a tangent about HMRC giving them money.

 

[Ian fraser]

My son in law has been asked to go back in to work today, which he has done. However, when he got to work, him and his team were asked not to clock in or out. The boss is basically claiming on the furlough scheme and having them work. He will pay them the extra 20% on top of the governments 80%. Obviously none of this is down on paper or on email. The business owner was smart enough to not mention it any calls either - my son in law only found out the plan when he turned up.

He is a valet in a large car dealership and he has bad asthma. So, he is at higher risk if he gets the virus (but not on any sort of extra risk list). He also faces the problem that breathing through PPE causes his Asthma problems. So he would rather not work and just take the 80% furlough money.

The company is laying it on thick that if they dont do it, they will go bust - knowing a bit about the history of the company, it wouldnt surprise me if it was true.

Does anyone know what his options are?

His options pretty simple really, first stop worrying about all the other scenarios, they may never arise. His legal option if currently furloughed is he doesn't have to return to work 'til June 1st if medically fit to do so.

I say June 1st because the first phase of restrictions lifting is likely to see car dealerships viewed as non-essential retailers i.e. allowed to open if they can prove they can keep safe which it sounds like they're trying to do - setting aside the rights or wrongs of him being back at work now whilst furloughed - if currently he has to wear a mask. If to keep him safe - and therefore satisfy government criteria to re-open legally - he needs to wear a mask and can't then consult a doctor. Whilst the virus is ongoing and these measures are in place a doctor may sign him off and avoid any confrontation with his employer. Longer term though if continued wearing of a mask is a condition of his employment he may have to start thinking of alternatives!

 

[Newchodge]

His legal option if currently furloughed is he doesn't have to return to work 'til June 1st if medically fit to do so.

Where do you get that from?

His options pretty simple really, first stop worrying about all the other scenarios, they may never arise. His legal option if currently furloughed is he doesn't have to return to work 'til June 1st if medically fit to do so.

I say June 1st because the first phase of restrictions lifting is likely to see car dealerships viewed as non-essential retailers i.e. allowed to open if they can prove they can keep safe which it sounds like they're trying to do - setting aside the rights or wrongs of him being back at work now whilst furloughed - if currently he has to wear a mask. If to keep him safe - and therefore satisfy government criteria to re-open legally - he needs to wear a mask and can't then consult a doctor. Whilst the virus is ongoing and these measures are in place a doctor may sign him off and avoid any confrontation with his employer. Longer term though if continued wearing of a mask is a condition of his employment he may have to start thinking of alternatives!

I am sorry, that is just complete rubbish

 

[Ian fraser]

Where do you get that from?

Where do you get that from?

I am sorry, that is just complete rubbish

If it's complete rubbish, no need to apologise. If my advice about not having to return to work whilst furloughed is incorrect and given you appear to be legal - apologies in advance for that assumption if you're in a non legal role in a legal office - then why not let Carl know what he was asking i.e. what ARE his son in laws options given he doesn't want to return to work nor report his employer?

In an attempt to help further and to answer your question though......

Government web site clearly states :-

While you’re on furlough
Once you are on furlough you will not be able to work for your employer.

Whilst furloughed your employer cannot ask you to do work for another linked or associated company.

So as long as he's furloughed he doesn't have to return to work, complete rubbish?

When replying I should have clarified that when the car dealership is allowed to open is obviously subject to whatever timetable the Welsh government are following re lifting the lock down. The example I used was based on the latest government guidelines – issued on May 11 as part of its recovery strategy – stating that non-essential retail will be allowed to happen in phases in ENGLAND from June 1. This would be when and where it’s safe to do so and subject to those retailers being able to follow the new Covid-19 Secure guidelines.

for June 1st read whenever for the devolved governments i.e. Scotland, Ireland and Wales who are currently running behind England's timetable by at least a week if not two!

To clarify further it's the trade - car dealerships who have stated in the press - who hope to be covered as part of non essential retail heading allowed to re-open June 1st, despite not being specifically listed to re-open themselves. This has yet to be clarified. I assume again therefore furloughed people working for dealerships won't be required to return to work until such times as it is.

For Carl's benefit - if he chooses to believe it's not complete rubbish - if they are allowed to open under the non essential retail heading which is essentially shops and branches for the purposes of government guidance then the Covid-19 secure guidelines quite clearly state :-

"It is important to know that the evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small, therefore face coverings are not a replacement for the other ways of managing risk, including minimising time spent in contact, using fixed teams and partnering for close-up work, and increasing hand and surface washing. These other measures remain the best ways of managing risk in the workplace and government would therefore not expect to see employers relying on face coverings as risk management for the purpose of their health and safety assessments.

Wearing a face covering is optional and is not required by law, including in the workplace. If you choose to wear one, it is important to use face coverings properly and wash your hands before putting them on and taking them off."

Therefore entirely up to your son in law - when his employer is allowed to resume business and assuming he does choose to return - whether or not he wears a mask upon return to work. Given what you were saying about his employer sailing close to the wind the bit about best management of risk will be a moot point but if he's got the courage of his convictions - i.e. won't cave to being bullied back - the law's on his side whilst furloughed as far as I'm concerned. Let me be clear though, I'm not a lawyer. Let's see what Newchodge, who it appears may be better placed to advise, has to say

 

[Newchodge]

Where to start with this rubbish.

The fact a business may not be open to the public does not preclude it requiring employees to return to work at any time. Furlough is at the absolute discretion of the employer and can be cancelled at any time.

Your original post stated:

he needs to wear a mask and can't then consult a doctor.

Anyone can consult a doctor at any time. What, exactly did you mean by this BS?

The OP is asking about someone being required to return to work while still furloughed. That is illegal and a fraud by the employer. If the employee does not want to return to work and does not want to report the employer for the fraud they have zero options.

 

[justintime]

Whats missing from the comments so far is that the employer has to notify the employee that furlough has ended on such and such a date and they should return to work. I would request that by email or in writing (would you agree Cyndy?)