Pimlico plumbing case could create a flood of claims for Purplebricks
However, a lack of clarity leaves the door open for the regulators to continue to shirk their responsibilities and for companies who use the Gig economy to avoid paying tax, worker/ employee benefits and to compete with an unfair advantage against competitors.
Yesterday’s decision at The Supreme Court , whilst being inconclusive in some respects, may well be giving the head office team of Purplebricks PLC and those investors who don’t already hold a short position a few sleepless nights over the coming weeks. Why?
When reading the following, bear in mind that National Trading Standards Estate Agency Teams‘formal position on Purplebricks LPEs’ are that LPEs’ are employed (this is contrary to The Property Ombudsmans’ position who regard LPEs’ as self-employed and to that of HMRC and the FCA).
If you are one of the many Purplebricks “local property experts” (LPEs’) who read my blog (or one of the even larger number of former LPEs’) you may be wondering why, having been sold the idea that you would be earning in excess of £60,000, that so very few do earn anything like that amount according to Companies House.
You may also wonder why, having paid for your own fuel, professional expenses, licenses, insurance etc, that you can’t afford to take time off ill or on holiday. Of course, if you are a worker and not a franchisee, you would be entitled to maternity pay, sickness and holiday pay and, salary at the level you were promised or, at very least, payment at the national minimum wage for all of the hours you’ve worked commission free.
Those LPEs’ who lost their territory or, had to give part of it up to another LPE due to failing to hit targets, whether possibly being classed as a ‘worker’ by this case, means they might now be able to sue the company for unfair dismissal.
Apart from the VAT, data protection, working time directive, national minimum wage and a multitude of workers rights issues NTSEAT also have to now make it clear why, if the LPEs’ are employed as NTSEAT are adamant they are, are NTSEAT facilitating a major PLC to allow it to trade without its employees paying appropriate NI or income tax. Which, if correct, would be a) illegal and b) trading unfairly and within their remit for action.
Investors in and law-abiding competitors of Purplebricks PLC may also draw their own conclusions and seek to make further enquiries, take appropriate positions and, consider discussing this case with their local Trading Standards Office.
Supporting our investigations into questionable or misleading claims