Self enployed nannies

Sorry, I didn't see the latest posts for some reason! Looks like you're sorted :)

I went from years of childminding to doing a bit of everything 'childminding, nannying & babysitting'. I spent ages on the phone being told I couldn't be self employed but I was sure I could due to my circumstances (i.e. not set times/days I was working, we talked to each other and worked out what help I could offer from week to week - it was to help with twins, not for her to work). In the end they directed me to a section on the web where I had to answer questions and at the end it told me if I'd be self employed or employed. Luckily it was self employed so was all fine. I can't remember the link but I've probably still got it printed out at home (to cover my back!) so can check if you can't find the link. I'd look now but I'm out babysitting so it will have to wait (if needed).

No need to split taxcode if you all agree Gross salaries. HMRC will adjust taxcode if both families pay under 10,600 a year, otherwise may allocate all to one family.

Yes, using a nanny payroll company is probably wise, cost is around £150 a year. PayeForNannies gets mentioned on here quite a bit but there are others. I would avoid the cheapest.

See I would argue 'can' is actively wrong. Saying a nanny 'can' be self employed, rather than something like 'it can be possible for a nanny to be self employed' implies to me that the choice is with either nanny, parents or both. I take your point about an alternative reading though Yonic.

If the job is going to be permanent then you need to employ her. Sort out a gross wage

Im a se nanny but that's coz I do night work plus temp so flit from
Job to job. Sometimes a day - or 3 days like current job - or a few weeks

I decide what days and hours I do and give the family my terms of contract

using 'can, in certain circumstances' wouldve been much better

it is bad advice but because it uses the word 'can' i suspect it won't stand up as a defence

I've just seen the actual page. Yes, that is appalling advice. I hope anyone who has relied on it has saved a screenshot.

Back in the mists of time, government departments used to maintain their own web pages. The DTI had a detailed site on employment (became DBERR later on). When it all got simplified down to gov.uk they removed a lot of the detail and it became very inaccurate. I swear I suspect that they use interns and other juniors to generate the content to save money. The old DTI site was one even practitioners would sometimes use to refer trainees, etc to a decent summary of the basics. You'd never in a million years do that with gov.uk.

It's often a bit like when you read articles journalists write on tax and employment law. They take the detailed, nuanced position and they try and edit it down. Except, because they don't have the depth of understanding they often change (subtly or drastically) the meaning of what they say.

There's a difference between employment status for tax and employment status under employment laws.

There are several tests of employee status including the right of substitution (ie could your nanny send someone else to do the job instead of her that you had never met?), control (or who decides when, where and what the worker will do?).

A nanny share for two families is extremely unlikely to be a non-employee relationship and that page linked to in the op is worryingly inaccurate. I've just flagged it for review by the publishers.

YY Penguins

But if that is what they are going to say, ask them to put it in writing so that you have some evidence if they pursue you for tax later. I bet they won't.

I'm sorry Wizzy, but if that is literally what they said (without any conditions or exceptions) then they have given you very bad, wrong advice.

That's it? That's all they said? No conditions I. That?

That's crap advice.

Has she actually told you that she is self employed?

Just to reiterate. Do not rely on something you find only in one place on Gov.uk. I have seen too many mistakes to count. Most recently they updated the section on the law on car seats and it was gobbledegook. MNers emailed them (and we went through two iterations)before it was accurate. Even when technically accurate it is often grossly over simplified.

Does she have to provide 10 hours at some point each week?

Once she has advised you when she can work, will it change frequently? Otherwise she's just saying she's available for work on Tue and Thu and you are employing her on those days.

The fitting around her commitments does tend to imply that she could be self employed, as she is in control of when she works. Though it is just one factor. If she has many clients, that could also be a factor taken into consideration (as is likely the situation with a babysitter).

If anyone wants some light bedtime reading... then the OTS has published a report recently (March 2015) about how Employment Status might be simplified. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422248/OTS_Employment_Status_report.pdf

I do agree that it does make it easier for when a short number of hours is involved.

However I do feel it is eroding employment rights. Tax law and Employment law are different things so even if Tax law did decide that they were not an employee then Employment law might, or might not consider them an employee.

They have not added anything to the ESM though, I can not find it in ESM4000 www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/esmmanual/ESM4000.htm

If a single factor is being used to determine status, would you not expect it to be listed in the Particular Occupations section, as it is for things like Examiners?