So it's alleged nigella took drugs with her kids?

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

I don't agree at all. I bet they have full PAYE records and their free board and lodging is down there as a benefit in kind if the rules need it CS was scrupulous in refunding any personal spending that went through the business.

Anyway we shall see what happens this week. Is NL giving evidence this week?

You are wildly oversimplifying, saragossa2010. As you are wont to do...

Bonsoir how do you know they were being partly in kind?

I think there are residential staff (nannies, housekeepers etc) up and down the land who are paid commensurately less because they live in. It's not illegal to pay people less because they live in, is it?

As long as they're being paid at least NMW I mean.

Because of what I have read in the papers. The Grillo sisters were officially being paid way under market for their services (fact, despite what some people on these threads would have us believe) and were allowed a certain amount of "leeway" on expenses. This is absolutely standard practice for many rich employers of domestic staff.

Now, I am sure that the CS-NL establishment didn't mean the Grillo sisters to live the high life at their expense. But the issue is that the boundaries were not defined and the so-called "fraud" was instigaged by CS-NL, not by the Grillo sisters. The Grillos may have overstepped, but what were they being asked to do (or conceal) in return?

IMVHO many rich people need their employment practices investigated.

I'm sure that the board and lodging will be properly recorded, but that's not the issue here is it? The question is whether they were in effect paid more than their payroll by being allowed a high level of personal spending on the company credit card in lieu of pay. I'd also wonder how the money on personal items was allowed to escalate if Saatchi really was being assiduous in separating company money from personal spending. It should have been pretty obvious surely? Seems a very poor set up from a governance point of view.

I agree with your assessment that there is plenty of fraud to go round, Bonsoir.

duchesse - with all due respect, I don't think you know anything about the employment practices and wages of the domestic staff of the über rich.

Yes, plenty of fraud to go round and the people with power in this instance are CS-NL, not the Grillo sisters.

The living in isn't a benefit in kind but if eg gym memberships were being paid for, the Grillis should have p11d's with these on.

What about clothes appropriate for a beach resort holiday with three teens? Or a ski resort holiday?

I don't know, Bonsoir, but HMRC will have guidelines. Gym membership is a personal benefit but I suppose if a writer liked to dictate to her secretary from an exercise bike, you could make an argument it was a business expense that might or might not be accepted - possibly would if the secretary lived nowhere near the gym in question.

It would be impossible for a nanny/housekeeper on £30,000 to afford the sort of wardrobe and grooming appropriate for the sort of resort that requires an £100,000 monthly credit limit for one adult and three teens... and appropriate to maintain authority over said three teens...

"The multimillionaire art dealer Charles Saatchi was unsure how credit card bills run up by his personal assistants and totalling tens of thousands of pounds a month were settled, a court has heard.

....

They had been given company credit cards in the name of Saatchi's company, Conarco, for their work as housekeepers and assistants, he said, along with three other personal assistants.

Asked by Jane Carpenter, prosecuting, if he could tell her how the expenditure on the cards was discharged, he said: "I can't … I'm sorry, I don't know." Pressed on the point, he added: "I am pretty certain that the company pays off everything and then bills me and I pay the company back for anything that's personal."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/29/charles-saatchi-nigella-lawson-assistants-credit-cards

Yeah cos I hear those exclusive resorts don't let you in if you are not dressed in designer clothes - and you can't control a teenager if you are not dressed in (stolen) Chloe darling!

Good grief! Rich people don't dress their staff in Prada and expect them to take taxis from London to Berkshire to watch the polo ( without any of NLs children I might add).

You seem to think the Grillos were underpaid hard done by downstairs creatures. In fact they had a pretty cushy number until they went too far. They were spending 10 times as much as Nigella for gods sake.

Bonsoir- I don't give a monkey's flying fuck who employs who, whether they are über rich or not they are still subject to the employment laws of the United Kingdom. Why do you have to use every single thread you contribute to point out that you hang out with wealthy people in a European capital, you weird lady?

HMRC's position on benefits in kind outlined here.

And if NL could get away with spending only £7000/month on her own expenses as an über-rich person (see, even I can find the umlaut on my keyboard, how coolly European is that?), then why the heck do her PAs need to spend 6x that?

Because NL didn't do any shopping for her household or her DC - only for herself. Her PAs were doing the vast majority of the running expenditure.

This bit's interesting.

I know people who put their nannies in a taxi several times a week to take the DC to golf/tennis etc at EUR 150 a pop. Nannies take taxis but also use chauffeurs. Quite normal.

Well, keeps the economy ticking over.

I know very well-off people who don't spend a penny more than they need to and furthermore pinch airplane and hotel freebies. some of them might be in my family

'You can't control a teenager if you aren't dressed in Chloe'

I know you are exaggerating making a joke but there is actually some truth in that in practice.

Ooh, I can never find the umlaut.

Have never ever managed it.

I would love to see the average teenager stand up to a Norland nanny in her brown generic uniform...