Background to the SCCS
As social care providers will be aware, on 1 November 2017, the Government announced that it was launching the SCCS for social care providers that may have incorrectly paid workers below National Minimum Wage (NMW) for sleep-in shifts.
By entering the SCCS, social care employers were agreeing to:
Additionally, under the SCCS, providers are also expected to review their pay records more generally, and if identified, set out any other areas of NMW underpayments to their workforce and pay arrears due.
July 2018 Announcement
Following the Court of Appeal judgment in Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake, on or around 24 July 2018, HMRC wrote to employers in the SCCS confirming it was considering the implications of the decision and advised that, in the meantime, the following options were available to those in the SCCS:
17 August 2018 Announcement
Finally, and to everyone’s surprise, on 17 August 2018 HMRC confirmed that it decided that it is appropriate to continue to operate the SCCS that all original timeframes and requirements of the scheme remain in place namely:
Worryingly, the announcement from HMRC gives no information on what approach HMRC will take to assessing whether time spent on sleep-ins was working time for NMW purposes. This is particularly concerning as the announcement does state that ‘all original requirements of the scheme remain in place’. Clearly, one of the original requirements was that all sleep-in time should be counted for NMW purposes.
We do not consider that HMRC will, in light of the Court of Appeal decision in Mencap, continue the original approach under the SCCS that all sleep-in time should count for NMW purposes. It is clear from the July announcement that HMRC expects providers who continue their self-review to take account of the Court of Appeal Judgement, however, HMRC does not make it clear whether all sleep-in time can be ignored as non-working time. The message from HMRC is confusing, and it appears that its approach will depend on what the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) say in their guidance on Calculating the Minimum Wage. HMRC has indicated that employers in the SCCS will be issued with an updated SCCS Employer guide once the revised Calculating the Minimum Wage is available.
Our comments
We consider that providers now have the following options:
HMRC has confirmed that failure to adhere to the terms or timeframes of the SCCS, or withdrawing from the SCCS, may result in HMRC opening an investigation into your pay practices. For some providers, however, exiting the SCCS may be the best option, and could potentially remove or significantly reduce any historical liability even if the appeal to the Supreme Court is successful.
The disadvantage of a nil declaration is there is no timescale for HMRC to accept or reject that declaration, so if there is a Supreme Court appeal, a provider could be left hanging by HMRC as to whether the declaration has been accepted or not until the Supreme Court judgment is handed down (probably no earlier than summer 2019). This could, therefore, leave those in the SCCS in the continuing state of uncertainty.
The other disadvantage of submitting a declaration is that it will also have to cover non-sleep-in-related NMW issues, and a provider who has not reviewed their records more generally may feel uncomfortable about signing a declaration. However, for providers who know they have some exposure to other issues, it may be advantageous to utilise the scheme and make an appropriate declaration.
Remaining in the SCCS and awaiting a further announcement is a possibility, but the time is now running out for undertaking any self-review with a deadline of 31 December 2018 fast approaching.
For more information on NMW compliance, please get in touch with your usual contact in our employment team. Alternatively, speak to Anna Dabek or Matthew Wort.
The European Court has upheld the long-standing principle that parties to a dispute should be able to choose their lawyers without having to go through a tender process (or use a framework).
On 8 July, news broke of the staggering fine of more than £183m the ICO intended to levy against British Airways as a result of a hack that took place in 2018, compromising 500,000 customers' data.
The Government has been refused permission to appeal a decision ruling that transitional arrangements in public sector pension schemes are discriminatory.
The Lifeline Project was a well-regarded charity. Failure to carry out the targets within the contracts led the charity into insolvency and resulted in a personal, 7-year disqualification order.
Many local authorities have assessed that a trading subsidiary or trading structure could be beneficial as part of generating income or the service delivery matrix.
On 23 July, trainees from Anthony Collins Solicitors will host an ‘experience day’, which will involve various activities and presentations, with lawyers and non-lawyers from across the firm.
The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) has launched a new scheme specifically for charities and not-for-profit organisations who want to advise EU citizens on UK settlement.
In the second part of our series on contract management pitfalls, we look at the risks and opportunities presented by payment mechanisms in construction contracts.
The Government has resurrected its plans to cap the termination payments for exiting employees in the public sector.
Under most construction contracts, the contractor takes on the ground conditions risk. However, a recent case has demonstrated that the risk can fall on the employer.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.