What should I do if I have a hearing scheduled in the COP?

Yes. The updated government guidance has confirmed that office holders (including company directors), salaried members of Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) individuals working under umbrella companies (including agency workers) and individuals who are classified as ‘workers’ rather than employees can be furloughed but only to the extent that they are paid via PAYE. Therefore director’s fees can be claimed (subject to the cap) but dividends are excluded, as are bonuses and commission payments.

Those who are paid annual are now eligible to make a claim, subject to meeting the remaining requirements. This includes being notified to HMRC on an RTI submission on or before 19 March 2020 which relates to a payment of earnings in the 19/20 tax year.

The decision to furlough a director or office holder should be adopted as a formal decision of the company or LLP which should be minuted and notified in writing.

Company directors can only undertake work to fulfil a duty or other obligation arising from an Act of Parliament relating to the filing of company accounts or provision of other information relating to the administration of the director’s company while furloughed and they cannot carry out work that would generate revenue or perform services to or on behalf of their company. This also applies to salaried individuals who are directors of their own personal service company (PSC).

These periods are often mistakenly referred to as minimum lengths of consultation (especially by Trade Unions). That is not correct. Consultation can commence, conclude and notices of dismissal be issued within the 30 and 45 day periods. The expiry of the notice would just have to be outside of those restricted periods.

The Coronavirus Statutory Sick Pay Rebate Scheme will repay employers the SSP paid to current or former employees and will be available from 26 May 2020. See here.

The scheme covers all types of employment contracts and employers will be eligible to claim if they:

• Are claiming for an employee who is eligible for sick pay due to coronavirus
• Had a payroll scheme that was created and started on or before 28 February 2020
• Had fewer than 250 employees on 28 February 2020

The repayment will cover up to 2 weeks starting from the first qualifying day of sickness, if an employee is unable to work because they either:

• have coronavirus (COVID-19) symptoms
• cannot work because they are self-isolating because someone they live with has symptoms
• are shielding and have a letter from the NHS or a GP telling them to stay at home for at least 12 weeks
• have been notified by the NHS or public health bodies that they’ve come into contact with someone with coronavirus
• they have been notified by the NHS to self-isolate before surgery

You can claim for periods of sickness starting on or after:

• 13 March 2020 – if your employee had coronavirus or the symptoms or is self-isolating because someone they live with has symptoms; or
• 16 April 2020 – if your employee was shielding because of coronavirus.
• 28 May 2020 – if your employee has been notified by the NHS or public health bodies that they’ve come into contact with someone with coronavirus
• 26 August 2020 – if your employee has been notified by the NHS to self-isolate before surgery

Employees do not have to give you a doctor’s fit note for you to make a claim. But you can ask them to give you either:

• an isolation note from NHS 111 – if they are self-isolating and cannot work because of coronavirus
• the NHS or GP letter telling them to stay at home for at least 12 weeks because they’re at high risk of severe illness from coronavirus
• the evidence from the NHS or public health body requiring them to self-isolate

You must keep the following records in relation to a claim you make under the scheme for three years:

• The reason for the employee’s absence
• Details of each period the employee could not work, including start and end dates
• Details of the SSP qualifying days when the employee could not work
• National insurance numbers for each employee you have paid SSP to

You’ll need to print or save your state aid declaration (from your claim summary) and keep this until 31 December 2024.

Partner at Ward Hadaway Adrian Ballam catches up with corporate finance expert and CBILS specialist Chris Silverwood (CorpFin and cashflow.co.uk) a month after their initial conversation to talk about what the last couple of months have taught us about access to finance.

Sections of the video and their timings are as follows:

(01.06) – example of continuing appetite for certain businesses (e.g. tech sector)

(02.06) – conflict between incumbent bank and different CBILS lenders, plus brief discussion of CBILS II

(05.36) – bounce back loans have been a distraction

(06.27) – muted impact of fintech CBILS lenders

(07.52) – discussion about invoice discounting

(11.59) – looming insolvency environment

(12:52) – emerging themes

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.