Music1 min ago
Self employed advance
6 Answers
I have recently worked for a company as a self employed as a sales adviser. When I joined, they said I would receive at least two leads per week to begin with and this would increase. Part of my job was also to visit their contacts in my area, which I did on a regular basis and at my own expense. Maintaining this contact took me about 30 hours a week and I also drove about about 300 miles per week, again at my own expense. During this period, in order to 'ease the passage'....their terminology not mine!...I received, what I understood to be, a minimum guarantee that would continue for either six months, or until my earnings exceeded this amount (£1,500 per month). After about three months and only having received three leads, none of which was as any good, I decided to call it a day. I have recently received a letter saying that I have to repay this money to them or they will take steps to recover it. I never signed any contract with these people, so could anybody tell me what my position is regarding this demand?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
There is no definitive timespan for an implied term, Boxtops, but I think that three months is too short and anyway pvw says he is self-
18:14 Mon 02nd Jan 2012
There is no definitive timespan for an implied term, Boxtops, but I think that three months is too short and anyway pvw says he is self-employed, not employed, and therefore implied terms of contract do not arise.
What (if anything) is the wording of any correspondence that relates to the way this money was paid to you? Is there ANYTHING that explains in writing the terms under which it was paid? If not, it sounds like their word against yours.
Secondly, how much money in total are we talking about? Don't disclose that if you don't wish to, but just think about the likely scenario that the bigger the sum of money, the more likely they will want to make an issue over it.
Reply to that and further advice on here may be possible. But it sounds like a possible strategy may be carefully-worded letter along the lines that 'as per our verbal discussions this contractual sum was made to me to cover my additional costs in the first six months. What exactly was the nature of your contract to provide them with services? - and were you working for other organisations at the same time - otherwise it sounds extremely dodgy to me that they took you onto a self-employed contract at all. This (if it ever became an issue with HMRC) is THEIR problem, not yours - in terms of potential means of leverage for you, if you get my drift.
What (if anything) is the wording of any correspondence that relates to the way this money was paid to you? Is there ANYTHING that explains in writing the terms under which it was paid? If not, it sounds like their word against yours.
Secondly, how much money in total are we talking about? Don't disclose that if you don't wish to, but just think about the likely scenario that the bigger the sum of money, the more likely they will want to make an issue over it.
Reply to that and further advice on here may be possible. But it sounds like a possible strategy may be carefully-worded letter along the lines that 'as per our verbal discussions this contractual sum was made to me to cover my additional costs in the first six months. What exactly was the nature of your contract to provide them with services? - and were you working for other organisations at the same time - otherwise it sounds extremely dodgy to me that they took you onto a self-employed contract at all. This (if it ever became an issue with HMRC) is THEIR problem, not yours - in terms of potential means of leverage for you, if you get my drift.
Indeed you do (generally) - a rate for delivery of the service you provide, plus expenses depending on what you can negotiate. The level could be negotiated as 'zero expenses'.
This is why I'm asking what precisely does the OP have in terms of the contract between the two parties - what service he was to provide for what fee.
This is why I'm asking what precisely does the OP have in terms of the contract between the two parties - what service he was to provide for what fee.
Thank you for the replies to my question. The things that Buidersmate has picked up on are more or less the ones I have been asking myself ever since I received this demand.
I was paid £1,500 per month by the company and I understood, although this was only verbal, that it was a minimum payment that would cease either after six months or before if my income exceeded this amount. They are now saying it was an advance to be recouped from future earnings and has to be repaid.
There was no correspondence relating to the money, but they are claiming the I have had a Terms of Contract and that the wording relating to this money is contained in an addendum to this. I have received neither Terms of Contract or an Addendum. I brought this up with them on two occasions and was told I would be sent one. I received a letter stating a Contract was enclosed, but it was not.
As for the self-employment side of it, they insisted that I worked only for them and this was the main reason I left....they were not providing me with enough business to earn a living....So unless I am wrong I do not think this can be classed as self-employment.
The work I did was a Customer Services/Business Development role and I travelled around their business partners, who paid them an amount each year for a telephone advocacy service this company provided. The service was pretty good to be fair, but the bottom line was that the advocates were on the lookout for people that needed regulated financial advice that they could then refer on to their Financial Advisers. I was to be paid commission on any financial services business that was carried out.
After looking at the payslips I received from them, these state 'Payment on Account' (something I should have picked up on before really) and the demand was accompanied by a document headed 'Supplier Invoices Due' and is for the amount of £4,344.
I must say that it has helped just writing this down and getting other points of view on it, it now seems ludicrous that I was letting it worry me since I cannnot see that they have a case to take me to Court with. In fact, I think my next step will be to invoice them for the hours and travelling I carried out on their behalf.
If anybody has any further comments they will be appreciated, but thank you for taking the time to respond and giving me the benefit of your comments in the first place.
I was paid £1,500 per month by the company and I understood, although this was only verbal, that it was a minimum payment that would cease either after six months or before if my income exceeded this amount. They are now saying it was an advance to be recouped from future earnings and has to be repaid.
There was no correspondence relating to the money, but they are claiming the I have had a Terms of Contract and that the wording relating to this money is contained in an addendum to this. I have received neither Terms of Contract or an Addendum. I brought this up with them on two occasions and was told I would be sent one. I received a letter stating a Contract was enclosed, but it was not.
As for the self-employment side of it, they insisted that I worked only for them and this was the main reason I left....they were not providing me with enough business to earn a living....So unless I am wrong I do not think this can be classed as self-employment.
The work I did was a Customer Services/Business Development role and I travelled around their business partners, who paid them an amount each year for a telephone advocacy service this company provided. The service was pretty good to be fair, but the bottom line was that the advocates were on the lookout for people that needed regulated financial advice that they could then refer on to their Financial Advisers. I was to be paid commission on any financial services business that was carried out.
After looking at the payslips I received from them, these state 'Payment on Account' (something I should have picked up on before really) and the demand was accompanied by a document headed 'Supplier Invoices Due' and is for the amount of £4,344.
I must say that it has helped just writing this down and getting other points of view on it, it now seems ludicrous that I was letting it worry me since I cannnot see that they have a case to take me to Court with. In fact, I think my next step will be to invoice them for the hours and travelling I carried out on their behalf.
If anybody has any further comments they will be appreciated, but thank you for taking the time to respond and giving me the benefit of your comments in the first place.
The contract
That's really not good enough for them to say they issued it. Virtually every self-employed contract for services is issued by one party and the other party signs and returns a copy. Its their word against yours.
In any event, what does it say about payment for services provided? How are the 'services' paid for - by time expended on outputs delivered or something else
The self-employed bit
Again, not very clever of them. I'll find and dig out the link to HMRC's indicators of whether a person is NORMALLY regarded as employed or self-employed - see how boxes your contract ticks. In the event that HMRC was to deem the employment as 'employed' status, the onus is then on the employer to pay not only the employee's and employer's NI but also the deemed PAYE tax - based on the amount paid to the individual. It is then an issue between the employer and the individual they attempted to employ on an SE contract to resolve the overpayment.
The terminology used by the company on your 'payslips' (which they are not of course, they are remittance advice statements - but you didn't issue an invoice?) does tend to suggest they were attempting to treat you as a SE contractor - but they have to satisfy a lot more than that.
I'm not sure it is worth irritating them by counter-claiming that you will invoice for your expenses - these should have been negotiated as part of the payments for services rendered.
I wouldn't by inclined to put any of my points in writing to them. Just be prepared to go along to a one-to-one discussion (of which you should write your own notes. You could then put some of the 'muddling' consequencesa of their actions that I have suggested to you. You could present them not as facts, but as 'it is my understanding that'. The objective of the meeting should be to part at the end with both sides agreeing to take things no further.
http://www.hmrc.gov.u...ment-status/index.htm
That's really not good enough for them to say they issued it. Virtually every self-employed contract for services is issued by one party and the other party signs and returns a copy. Its their word against yours.
In any event, what does it say about payment for services provided? How are the 'services' paid for - by time expended on outputs delivered or something else
The self-employed bit
Again, not very clever of them. I'll find and dig out the link to HMRC's indicators of whether a person is NORMALLY regarded as employed or self-employed - see how boxes your contract ticks. In the event that HMRC was to deem the employment as 'employed' status, the onus is then on the employer to pay not only the employee's and employer's NI but also the deemed PAYE tax - based on the amount paid to the individual. It is then an issue between the employer and the individual they attempted to employ on an SE contract to resolve the overpayment.
The terminology used by the company on your 'payslips' (which they are not of course, they are remittance advice statements - but you didn't issue an invoice?) does tend to suggest they were attempting to treat you as a SE contractor - but they have to satisfy a lot more than that.
I'm not sure it is worth irritating them by counter-claiming that you will invoice for your expenses - these should have been negotiated as part of the payments for services rendered.
I wouldn't by inclined to put any of my points in writing to them. Just be prepared to go along to a one-to-one discussion (of which you should write your own notes. You could then put some of the 'muddling' consequencesa of their actions that I have suggested to you. You could present them not as facts, but as 'it is my understanding that'. The objective of the meeting should be to part at the end with both sides agreeing to take things no further.
http://www.hmrc.gov.u...ment-status/index.htm
1 to 6 of 6
