Skip to content
Menu

Home › FAQs › How the furlough scheme changed from 1 July – what is flexible furlough?

How the furlough scheme changed from 1 July – what is flexible furlough?

From 1 July 2020 the furlough scheme has been operating more flexibly.

The key changes from 1 July 2020 were:

  • All furloughed employees are subject to the new flexible furlough rules and the new basis for calculating claims
  • Furloughed employees can be brought back to work on a part-time basis for any amount of time and can work any work pattern
  • Employers can claim for the hours not worked compared the hours the person would normally have worked in that period
  • There must be a new written furlough agreement in place to record the agreement with the furloughed employee to return to work part-time
  • The new agreement (including a collective agreement) must be made before any period of flexible furlough begins but it may be varied at a later stage if necessary. The agreement must be incorporated into the employee’s contract of employment, either expressly or impliedly
  • Employers must keep a record of this agreement until at least 30 June 2025, and they must also keep a record of the hours the furlough employee worked and the hours that they were furloughed
  • Employees can be furloughed from 1 July 2020 for any amount of time and more than once
  • However, if you re-furloughed an employee after 10 June but before 1 July 2020, they had to be furloughed for an initial period of three consecutive weeks
  • Claims for payments under the scheme must not cross calendar months so if you are claiming for the initial three week period of a re-furloughed employee who was furloughed on 12 June for example, you must submit separate claims for the dates in June and July
  • Although flexible furlough agreements can last any length of time, you should only submit a claim to HMRC once a week.

Related FAQs

What happens if that means a particular service might need to close?

Ultimately closing a service will be a decision that is taken at the highest level and that decision will depend on risk appetite.  Often these types of higher risk are mitigated by way of insurance but that still depends on an insurer being willing to accept that risk. This decision will depend on accepting a known risk and its consequences.

Last updated on 19th May, 2020

What is the guidance in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards during the Covid-19 pandemic?

The Department of Health & Social Care has published guidance for hospitals, care homes and supervisory bodies on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) during the coronavirus pandemic.

In many scenarios created or affected by the pandemic, decision makers in hospitals and care homes will need to decide:

  • if new arrangements constitute a ‘deprivation of liberty’ (most will not), and
  • if the new measures do amount to a deprivation of liberty, whether a new DoLS authorisation will be required (in most cases it will not be).

If a new authorisation is required, decision makers should follow their usual DoLS processes, including those for urgent authorisations.

A summary of the key points to be taken from the guidance is outlined below:

Use of the MCA and DoLS due to Covid-19

  • During the pandemic, the principles of the MCA and the safeguards provided by DoLS still apply.
  • It may be necessary to change the usual care and treatment arrangements, for example to provide treatment for people with Covid-19, to move them to a new hospital or care home to better utilise resources or to protect them from becoming infected.
  • All decision makers are responsible for implementing the emergency Government health advice  and any decision made under the MCA must be made in relation to a particular individual, it cannot be made in relation to groups of people.

Best interest decisions

  • In many cases, a best interests decision will be sufficient to provide the necessary care and treatment for a person who lacks the capacity to consent to the care and/or treatment arrangements during this emergency period.
  • If an individual has made a valid and applicable advance decision to refuse the treatment in question, then the relevant treatment, even for Covid-19, cannot be provided.

Delivering life-saving treatment

  • Where life-saving treatment is being provided in care homes or hospitals, including for the treatment of Covid-19, then the person will not be deprived of liberty as long as the treatment is the same as would normally be given to any person without a mental disorder.
  • The DoLS will therefore not apply to the vast majority of patients who need life-saving treatment who lack the mental capacity to consent to that treatment, including treatment to prevent the deterioration of a person with Covid-19.

The full guidance can be found here.

Last updated on 14th April, 2020

Can you require an employee to tell their employer whether they have been tested for coronavirus/the results of that test?

Yes, this is very likely to amount to a reasonable management instruction which is put in place for public health reasons. Employers should make it clear to their employees that this is something they are required to do and that if they fail to do so this may lead to disciplinary action.

Last updated on 23rd June, 2020

The employee I need to consider suspending is a doctor – do I have to follow MHPS

Yes probably in our opinion, even if you are not considering taking any formal action against them. Ultimately if a doctor is suspended this could be considered as causing them reputational damage and it therefore is correct that they are afforded the protections (in particular in relation to keeping exclusion/suspension under review) of MHPS. Under Part V of MHPS there is provision for excluding practitioners if they are a danger to patients and they refuse to recognise it or if they refuse to co-operate. It doesn’t refer to a particular risk for the practitioner themselves, but it would appear logical that it would apply.

Last updated on 19th May, 2020

In a situation where a building has a B1 EWS1 rating but the insurance companies are either refusing to quote or saying the cladding is a fire risk (due to the result of the intrusive survey for the EWS1 rating) and quadrupling insurance premium, is there anything that will help with this situation in the Building Safety Act or the secondary regulations when they come in or do you think it is something case law will have to address?

The amount an insurer charges for providing cover is a critical aspect of the underwriting process. The premium must be sufficient to cover expected claims but must also take into account the possibility that the insurer will have to access its capital reserve –it is risk assessment based and the greater the risk, the higher the premium. Historically, insurers of high-rise buildings would have only had to prepare for a loss caused by damage to just a few flats within a building. That is because the design and construction of that building, with the right materials and fire safety provisions in place, should have limited the spread of fire and allowed the damage to be contained –or at least make this an extremely low risk. Now we know that many buildings have been designed, built and signed off in a regulatory system that an independent Government review has found was not fit for purpose. Premiums will reduce overtime but will be dependent upon the perceived level of risk reducing as the regulatory regime, BSA and BSR become more established.

Last updated on 13th October, 2022