Uk Mail Driver Who Was Unable To Work After Car Accident Charged £800

[mikey4444]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/19/uk-mail-driver-unable-to-work-car-accident-charged-800-pounds

Does anybody think this is just and fair ? This chap was injured as a result of a car accident while on duty.

But his employer charged him £800 for the injury !

[ToraToraTora]

yes bang out of order that.

[New Judge]

A similar problem was highlighted last week with another firm, Mikey. As is often the case, all is not as it seems.

Mr Ibrahimov is not (or rather was not) employed by UK Mail. He was a self-employed contractor. He entered into a contract where these charges were clearly explained. The company incurs charges when a contractor fails to fulfil their contract in the same way that you would if you employed somebody who did not come up with the goods as agreed. He was presumably happy with the conditions of the contract. It would be interesting to discover if he was genuinely “self-employed”. A recent tribunal appeal lost by Charlie (“Pimiico Plumbers”) Mullins suggested that many firms are using people on a self-employed basis when in fact they do not meet the definition. Whilst Mr Ibrahimov may have a case to take to a tribunal on that basis, he was presumably perfectly happy with the advantages of being self-employed when he signed his contract and cannot complain when clauses in it are not in his favour. I would imagine that he can claim his losses from the driver who ran him over.

[mikey4444]

NJ....and how long will that take I wonder ?

UK Mail could just as easily employ this man themselves, but they choose not to do so for financial gain. What if his injury was life-threatening and/or long term ?

[ladybirder]

Am I right in thinking that you can't work for only one company and be classed as self-employed? How can they work for any other company when they are on call most of the time? Surely this company is in effect their employer?

[mikey4444]

Ladybirder....its a scam, put in place for financial gain.

[youngmafbog]

This is the MWSD attitude to it: http://tools.hmrc.gov.uk/esi/screen/ESI/en-GB/summary?user=guest

[youngmafbog]

No it is not Mickey. You really dont understand business at all do you?

[youngmafbog]

//What if his injury was life-threatening and/or long term ? //

You do the same as employer does, you purchase insurance. As a self employed person YOU are responsible NOT the company.

[AB Editor]

UK Mail provide an awful service, so this doesn't surprise me at all.

[mikey4444]

This is good, old fashioned exploitation.

[mushroom25]

//This is the MWSD attitude to it: //

"This Page Cannot Be Displayed".

it would appear to be hidden behind a log-in?

[youngmafbog]

Oh, sorry Mushroom, I dint think - I have a login.

[ToraToraTora]

ahh I see, as usual the judge gets to the detail, he's not an employee he's self employed and has signed a contract to supply a service., Standard business practice when engaging a 3rd party firm. Should have realised the grauniad would only supply half the story!

[youngmafbog]

//This is good, old fashioned exploitation.//

Before making such platitudinous statement, why dont you try and find out something about the subject?

[ladybirder]

I got in OK. See if this is better.
http://tools.hmrc.gov.uk/esi/screen/ESI/en-GB/summary?user=guest

[Old_Geezer]

No legal eagle but I can't believe a contractor can not work solely for one purchaser of their skills at a time. If I employ someone to dig over my garden and lay a path and expect them to be there all week and not off doing things, that wouldn't make me an employer nor they an employee. I'd simply have agreed a contract with someone to do something for me.

That said, I think a company hiring umpteen self employed contractors is something both sides need to carefully consider before agreeing. I don't think it should be the case that anyone feels they have no option but to go self employed in order to find paid work. It should be a considered life choice.

[Samjenko]

The workers' 'rights' legislation introduced by Labour and the EU make directly employing people a very costly and risky proposition.
Only those with access to tax-payers money can take those risks.

[Samjenko]

Had to laugh. Matey sauntered to the office waving his 2 week sick note.
On being informed the sick note 'didn't matter', lo, our latter day Lazarus had a miraculous recovery and went back to work the next day.

[fiction-factory]

He wasn't charged £800 for his injury.
He chose to work as a contractor with UK Mail. Under the agreed terms when he was unable to provide the service he had to pay the cost of an alternative.
Some people who chose to work as contractors/self employed (lots of builders for example) want to have their cake and eat it in that they want the higher pay and tax/MI/expenses benefits and teh flexibility offered by their contracts but what the same rights as an employed person.
There is a clear grey area still between employed and contactor and as the Uber and Pimlico cases have shown the present basis of some can be challenged successfully but I don't think we can outlaw tehse arrangements as some would seek to do (same with zero hours contracts) as some businesses cannot operate without them and some workers actually prefer this type of arrangement- just as I want a zero hours contract and yet many on the left would want to outlaw those too.