Do you think MHFA will become a legal requirement for businesses eventually?

The Government assured parity for the self-employed but it has since accepted that this would be difficult to achieve. The Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed (IPSE) has worked closely with the Government on implementing the current self-employment income support scheme. IPSE has confirmed that it will continue to work on helping to extend measures to all freelancers in need as a result of Covid-19.

The Government announced an extension to the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme from 1 November 2020.

One of the key legislative requirements of EMI is that the employee satisfies the working time requirement, which is that they work at least 25 hours per week in the company or, if less, 75% of the employee’s total working time. If the working time requirement ceases to be met, then there is a “disqualifying event”. That means that the tax benefits of EMI ceases. It may also mean that the option lapses, but that depends on the specific terms of the option.

An employee who has been furloughed is by definition no longer working 25 hours/week and therefore on the face of it, there is a disqualifying event. However, the Government has tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill currently going through Parliament providing in effect that time not worked because an employee has been furloughed counts as working time, both for determining whether the working time requirement is met initially and whether there is a disqualifying event. Provided this amendment is enacted, this should address the issue.

The Government has produced and published three new Procurement Policy Notes as a direct result of the ever changing Covid-19 environment.

PPN 01/20: Responding to COVID-19

The purpose of PPN 01/20 is to ensure that contracting authorities are able to procure goods, services and works with extreme urgency, to allow them to respond to the pandemic efficiently.

This PPN provides guidance for the following circumstances:

• Direct award due to extreme urgency (regulations 32(2)(c)) (click here to read our article regarding regulation 32)
• Direct award due to an absence of competition or protection of exclusive rights
• Call off from an existing framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system
• Call for competition using a standard procedure with accelerated timescales
• Extending or modifying a contract during its term

PPN 02/20: Supplier relief due to COVID-19

PPN 02/20 focuses predominantly on the supplier to assist in keeping supply chains open and ensuring that suppliers are kept financially sound during these unpredictable times.

This PPN provides guidance for the following circumstances:

• Urgent reviews of contract portfolios and to update suppliers if they believe they are at risk
• Put in place appropriate payment measure to support supplier cash flow
• Where contract payments are based on ‘payment by results’ make payments based on previous invoices
• Ask suppliers to act on a ‘open book’ basis and make cost data available to the contracting authority during this period
• Ensure invoices submitted by suppliers are paid immediately on receipt

PPN 03/20: Use of Procurement Cards

The third guidance note PPN 03/20 relates to the use of procurement cards to increase efficiency and accelerate payment to suppliers.

This PPN provides the following advice and urges organisations to arrange with their procurement card provider to:

• Increase a single transaction limit to £20,000 for key card holders
• Raise monthly limits on spending with procurement cards to £100,000 for key card holders
• Spend on procurement cards each month in excess of £100,000 should be permissible to meet business needs

Although the above advice has been provided, should these limits not be necessary, organisations should seek an appropriate transaction limit or monthly limit.

The PPN also advises that by 30 April 2020, in scope organisations should:

• Ensure that a number of appropriate staff have the authority to use these cards
• Open all relevant categories of spend to enable these cards to be used more widely

Yes probably in our opinion, even if you are not considering taking any formal action against them. Ultimately if a doctor is suspended this could be considered as causing them reputational damage and it therefore is correct that they are afforded the protections (in particular in relation to keeping exclusion/suspension under review) of MHPS. Under Part V of MHPS there is provision for excluding practitioners if they are a danger to patients and they refuse to recognise it or if they refuse to co-operate. It doesn’t refer to a particular risk for the practitioner themselves, but it would appear logical that it would apply.

If the debts owed to you pre-date Covid-19 and your debtor seemed unable to pay well before the Covid-19 pandemic took place, it is entirely possible that you will be able to present a petition on the grounds that the debtor would have been unable to pay its debts even if the Covid-19 had no effect on its financial position. We do not yet have any reliable precedent as to how the Courts are likely to deal with such cases.  Whether you are likely to succeed will depend on the exact circumstances of the debt and your debtor. There has been one case decided in August 2020 where the Court concluded that Covid-19 did not have a financial effect upon the debtor and that the circumstances which gave rise to the petition had arisen long before Covid and would have occurred in any event.  A winding up order was made in that case.  What we do know about the court’s approach is that the purpose of the Act is to allow viable companies to trade through the current times and the Court is likely to set the bar high.

Please contact us if there a debt you would like to discuss. Even if presenting a winding up petition is not available for now, there may still be other forms of legal proceedings that you can use to collect money owed to you, like county court proceedings.