This direction gives legal effect to the elements of the scheme that were set out in the guidance published 12 June.
Guidance should continue to be the key point of reference for employers and employees.
Back to Contents
Correcting your CJRS overclaim to HMRC 29 June 2020
HMRC has updated the Claim for wages through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) GOV.UK page to provide further clarification where an employer needs to make a repayment for an overclaim of grant through the CJRS.
Overclaim correction
The guidance now makes clear that if you have made an error and overclaimed an amount this must be repaid which can be made by letting HMRC know when you make your next claim where you will be asked whether you need to reduce the amount to take account of a previous overclaim. If so your new claim amount will be reduced to reflect the overclaimed amount and you should keep a record of this adjustment for 6 years. If you have overclaimed and you do not plan to submit any further claims then you should contact HMRC to let them know the details of your error and find out how to pay back any overclaimed amounts. Once you have contacted us you will be given a payment reference number and directed to make a payment.
Underclaim correction process
Where you have made an error resulting in an underclaimed amount, you should contact HMRC to amend your claim. HMRC will conduct further checks to satisfy themselves that your claim can proceed as you will be increasing the amount of your claim.
In addition a new guidance page on repaying CJRS overclaims has been added to the CJRS guidance collection.
Back to Contents
High Court ruling on Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and limb (b) workers 1 July 2020 Two Uber drivers, alongside the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain , made an application to the High Court for a judicial review of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) and Statutory Sick Pay (SSP). The High Court rejected this application, and therefore, no such review will take place. The High Court ruled that government decisions relating to the CJRS and SSP were not unlawful in relation to ‘limb b workers’. Speaking on behalf of one of the claimants, Mr. Adiatu, who is a private hire driver for Uber, the Court heard that- “His income decreased dramatically in March 2020 and he could not afford to pay for his private hire vehicle licence renewal in April 2020 so is now unable to work, and has fallen into rent arrears. He has a wife and four children aged from 7 months to 12 years, two in the UK and two in Egypt. In his first witness statement he understandably described his financial situation as 'dire and terrifying'. More recently he has received a payment under the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme, but the financial pressures on him remain severe.
The judges also explained-
Uber drivers such as Mr Adiatu were held by the Court of Appeal in Uber BV v Aslam to be workers within the scope of s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (though an appeal by Uber from that decision is shortly to be heard by the Supreme Court). Such workers occupy an intermediate status between those working under a contract of
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 222 of 590
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker