What can suppliers of goods and services do to minimize risk?

If you are eligible you will get a taxable grant of 80% of the average profits from the following tax years (where applicable):

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

HMRC will add the total profit in each of the three tax years (if applicable). This will then determine the monthly payment, subject to the cap of £2500.

It is envisaged that employees of organisations falling into the first two categories set out above and won’t be eligible for the job retention scheme in relation to the majority of their employees. It is envisaged that NHS Trusts for example are going to require their staff to be working at full capacity where possible. However, the guidance doesn’t definitely exclude public sector organisations from furloughing employees and notably the government expects such organisations to use public money to continue to pay staff and not furlough them, rather than say requires. In reality, it is difficult to see how such an organisation will be able to rely on the scheme, but the guidance doesn’t completely rule it out.

No one factor will determine status and the outcomes will differ depending on the nature of the work being carried out and the business of the end user client.

When you have carried out an assessment based on the relevant factors you can either get in touch with us to discuss further, check your answers against HMRC’s CEST tool or do both before making a final determination.

Increased hygiene measures should be introduced to limit the spread of infection. Increase the frequency of cleaning, particularly higher risk contact points such as door handles. Avoid the use and sharing of hardcopy in favour of electronic documents; avoid sharing of tools and work equipment; increase the availability of handwashing facilities and hand sanitisers; issue anti-bacterial wipes and tissues to staff, and remind everyone to maintain good personal hygiene practices, including regular hand washing. Prominent and repeat signage will be vital in reminding workers of these steps they can take to protect themselves.

PPE – e.g. disposable gloves and face masks – are not currently legally required in the UK, but especially where social distancing might not be possible, it may be necessary to make appropriate PPE available to staff. If so, you will need to make sure there is enough available train everyone so it used properly and provide for safe disposal of used items.

MOST IMPORTANTLY – communicate with your people; invite their input and suggestions and act on them. Communication and participation in the process of a safe return to work are going to be crucial to its’ success.
Monitor for illness: train managers how to spot the symptoms of COVID-19 and have a clear process if someone is potentially infected. Continue to remind staff to only come into work if they are well and not experiencing any symptoms. A number of businesses are planning on using testing and screening methods, such as temperature checks. Remember, these steps create data privacy considerations which you will need to consider.

Do not forget existing health and safety obligations, such as maintaining sufficient numbers of fire marshals and first aiders on-site. Employers should also be aware that the Health and Safety Executive must be notified under RIDDOR of any workplace incidents that lead to exposure to COVID-19 and any cases where there is “reasonable evidence” that it was caused by exposure in the workplace. Be aware that workers are being encouraged to report to HSE failures of their employers to keep them safe from the threat of the virus.

The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:

• The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
• How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
• Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.

The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.