If Purplebricks and Yopa LPEs do not have workers’ rights, should public be told they are separate companies?

I’m starting to lose count of the rulings that various authorities have now laid down with regard to ‘gig economy’ workers being deemed employees to some extent despite their official self-employed status.

Deliveroo, Uber, Hermes, Addison Lee and now Pimlico Plumbers have all lost (so far) in their respective battles to defend their position whereby they hire self-employed individuals in order to avoid having to pay sickness and holiday pay together with further benefits that include getting around employer PAYE and National Insurance contributions too.

These are not the only ‘swerves’, though, as ‘non-employees’ will also not have the same protection where employment tribunal matters would otherwise be concerned such as unfair dismissal. Clearly this is deemed as an upside to some employers that may feel they would rather avoid such responsibility, regardless of the ethics involved.

Therefore it’s easy to see why, selfishly at least, these firms choose to set out their recruitment policies like this (albeit one can only imagine the effect on tax revenues if all companies took the same stance).

But moped riding pizza-deliverers and cab drivers are not the only professions to be caught by what is sure to become a growing scandal. Some estate agents are also now part of the problem and, in my view, will also be subject to the same judgements that we are now regularly seeing at employment tribunals and the Supreme Court.

In particular Purplebricks and Yopa, the online listing agents, utilise ‘non-employed’ workers to undertake home visits for them. In most cases these are individuals who are self-employed but are required to set up separate limited companies from which they trade.

This separation means that these hard-working property valuers have no employment protection, are not able to be guaranteed the statutory minimum wage where applicable, and are not able to claim sickness pay or holiday pay.

And, of course, the companies that they are contracted to represent, save hundreds of thousands of pounds over long periods by avoiding these obligations, as well as avoiding NI and PAYE levies.

HMRC states that encouraging those that would otherwise be employees to set up a limited company is not a cast-iron way for employers to get around what an employee ‘looks like’ in rule terms.

In fact they have recently published an online tool that defines via a number of criteria (sources of income, control over various aspects of your work regime etc) whether a worker is really employed, self-employed or a bona-fide limited company for the purposes of tax. This, one imagines, has parallel implications similarly on what constitutes employment relating to sickness and holiday pay and rights. (The BBC have also been thwarted using Personal Service Companies to avoid tax and have been told by HMRC that it is not legitimate to do so.)

I’ve tested the tool by inputting as if I were an online agent’s self-employed LPE and the answer it threw back was: ‘You are employed’. See https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-employment-status-for-tax/setup

So what if Purplebricks or Yopa LPEs were to take issue with their status and take legal action as the Uber drivers, Deliveroo riders and Gary Smith the plumber did? It seems that it is now increasingly likely that they would succeed.

Compellingly, this perhaps means that a carve-out might have to be made in the accounts of such businesses to meet the potential for the retrospective claims of past and current LPEs at many hundreds and thousands of pounds each.

I’m no accountancy expert but most would agree that in this age of financial scrutiny, especially where public businesses are concerned, a provision is easily arguable.

But my main concern is this:

In the event that estate agents turn out not to be caught by the latest Pimlico and Uber precedents, surely the companies involved should then be required to point out clearly and properly to potential customers that these field agents are not their local experts at all, but actually separate, legally distant limited companies working on their behalf and that they have little control over?

And with the likelihood that they are doing additional, alternative jobs at other times too, and are not full-time employees with all of the comfort that the consumer might derive from such a belief.

They surely can’t have it both ways.

* Russell Quirk is CEO and founder of Emoov, which is now merged with Tepilo and Urban. He tells us that all of the business’s local valuers are fully employed.

Purplebricks is adamant that its LPEs do not work in the gig economy and, as limited companies, recent court rulings on employees’ rights do not apply.

x

Email the story to a friend!



40 Comments

  1. Property Poke In The Eye

    Even though I fully trust what RQ is saying (not).  It would be interesting to find out if Emoov and Tepillo LPE’s are employed or self employed directly from the LPE’s?

    Any Emoov or Tepillo LPE’s out there to comment?

     

     

    Report
    1. ArthurHouse02

      The problem is the public dont care whether PB are one big company or 500-600 tiny little companies all with the same name. They are mislead on a daily basis (in my opinion) so this makes no difference to Mr and Mrs Smith selling their home. Also as we’ve seen with the constant ASA ruling, PB dont care either.

      Report
      1. smile please

        It’s not about the public. It’s workers rights.

         

        Report
        1. ArthurHouse02

          I agree completely, but the article was focusing on the issue from a consumer decision making point of view. 
          The bigger question, is are these LPEs told there is no holiday pay, sick pay etc. Are they being mislead by PB in the way that so many people are now claiming they have been mislead/mis-sold by the LPEs?

          Report
          1. smile please

            I guess that’s what Russell is trying to do “Stir the pot” in the hope a disgruntled employee starts a case.
            I expect Russell will even offer legal assistance 😉

            Report
    2. Robert May

      This is a disturbance sales pitch to LPE’s. “Come and work for Emoov!”

       

      Report
    3. robweare40

      Good morning. I am an LPE with Emoov, and our employment status is very transparent and I can happily confirm that we are indeed directly employed by Emoov and enjoy the usual rights that this brings.

      Report
      1. Robert May

        Out of interest; how big is your local area?

        Report
        1. Marc Cottrell

          Wales lol

          Report
          1. Beano200062

            Robweare, we appreciate you have come on, no doubt at the behest of your boss to explain this, do you have to get his permission to answer the question from Robert?

            Report
            1. P-Daddy

              To be fair to Robweare40 he ha answered the question posed by Propertypoke at the beginning of thread. They are employed

              Report
        2. smile please

          Given their website only lists 24 reps covering the entire UK i would say ‘pretty large area’
          Also one of the worst members of staff i have ever had the misfortune to employ seems to be one of them. 

          Report
    4. ManiRamasamy81

      Employment at Emoov Vs Self-employment at Purplebricks

      I am an ex-Purplebricks and worked self-employed. Great company, some great people (not all), plenty of flaws but ultimately No basic, No standard commission structure across the board (every TO paid differently within the same city), No Car, No Phone, No allowance, No professional media equipment (cheap sony camera, no tripod), No holiday pay, No sick pay, No rights, No benefits!

      In Emoov, we are ALL employed and receive some great benefits. The reason for this is simple, I work for a company that value its employees and their needs, the support goes way beyond financial rewards, what I have personally witnessed is on another level. In return, the employees go above and beyond for the company and its vendors.

      P.S. There seems to be a lot of smart people messaging a lot of smart comments, if you do not have anything constructive and positive to say then please don’t say it (using your undercover names – rather pathetic if you ask me). Save your time and energy, and go save your vendors from paying unnecessary high fees. You want to use smart phones, you want to use compare the market sites, you want to use amazon especially prime, you want to use uber, you want the highest possible service for the lowest possible price BUT when it comes to Online Estate Agency, you also want to moan, bad mouth and bit little the people who are trying to make a difference. Please be mindful of all the above, in 3 to 5 years time, you will be going to the online companies for a job!

      The emoovment is REAL!

      Good Luck & God Bless

       

      Report
      1. PeeBee

        Mr Ramasamy

        Welcome to the lions’ den!

        I’ll give you four out of ten for putting your ‘nads on the block here.  The other six should perhaps go to whoever put you up to it – in fairness they’ve got a lot more to lose by calling the ball (no pun intended) – but to be honest that would be six too many in my mind as you should be worth far more to that ‘whoever’ than a mere pawn in a game of *********** (credit: Jonnie) which is currently being played out.  And I bet you realise that now.

        But back to your post.

        You were a LPWhassname for PB for a period of 5 or so months, from what I can see.  Some would say you hardly gave it a chance and that you weren’t prepared or ready for the big step from paid employee to ‘business owner’ – but in fairness to you, bu99er-all income doesn’t go very far when there are bills to pay every day.

        You list an awful lot of “NOs” in your post – stuff that you did not benefit from working the way you did.  But you knew about every one of them before signing up to PB.  You still went for it.

        Now your ‘P.S.’ is, let’s be honest, rather more pathetic than the subject it is written about.  Frankly it borders on desperation – whether that’s yours or someone else’s by proxy remains to be seen but nevertheless, desperation it leaks by the bucketload.

        Let’s just cut through the cr@p here, shall we?  You aren’t looking to ‘make a difference’.  You’re looking to make yourself more money than you were before.  You’ve seen a bandwagon – and you’re on it like a rash.  Just like what you thought was the last bandwagon you jumped on… and the one before that.

        In “3 to 5 years time” let’s see where we both are – shall we?

        I’ll tell you now – I’ll be here.

        Report
  2. The Outsider

    Good article, and I agree with most of the points – which is a rarity for me.

    Report
  3. jeremy1960

    Burple*ricks advert on our local radio (wave 105) something about no commission as they have no office overheads may soon have to change then? Mind you, nothing in that advert to indicate that fees are payable whether property sells or not, or that viewings cost extra 9th that there’s a penalty for not using the pb conveyancing factory!

    Report
    1. Chris Wood

      I suggest you contact your local Trading Standards. According to The Property Ombudsman ‘find a member’ section, they have quite a few offices https://www.tpos.co.uk/find-a-member Just search for Purplebricks and leave location blank.

      Report
  4. smile please

    I guess that’s what Russell is trying to do “Stir the pot” in the hope a disgruntled employee starts a case.

    I expect Russell will even offer legal assistance 😉

    Report
  5. Chris Wood

    That Russell and I agree on a topic and even wrote a similarly themed article at the same time is unsettling but indicative of the problem Purplebricks and the hundreds of LPEs’ who have been sold a dream of £60,000 earnings may be facing. https://blog.pdq-estates.co.uk/2018/06/14/pimlico-plumbing-case-could-create-a-flood-of-claims-for-purplebricks/

    Report
  6. downdoobydodowndowndubaduba

    I assume as “not directly employed ” people each PB / Emoov / Tepillo / other  agent will have to have their own Rightmove account – and monthly very expensive payments to make to them and any other portals they use?  – and not have different rules that they can all use PB “account”.

    Who is policing these things?

    Report
    1. Property Poke In The Eye

      This is an Interesting point.

      Report
    2. Certus

      I wonder if NAEA had an account – that we could all use? Same principle and must be very beneficial to us all.

      This would curb the ever increasing cost and be a huge NAEA member benefit.

      Ros can you flag this to someone?

      Report
      1. Chris Wood

        I had discussed this very idea with Rosalind Renshaw (Ed’) at PIE and others and intended to make such a pitch on behalf of all members had I been re-elected to the NAEA team.

        Report
        1. Certus

          Can someone at NAEA take over? They really need to do more.

          The same PB billing model must surely be avantageous to all of us, even if we lose our individual logo in favour of a PropertyMark logo – and that would be great for PropertyMark growth and promotion at zero cost.

          This could be good to sustain membership when many of us are questioning this?

          Report
    3. dave_d

      Surely this also brings into question whether each separate company is required to have CMP if they are dealing with Lettings which I believe Purplebricks do offer?

      Report
  7. downdoobydodowndowndubaduba

    Good morning all.

    I assume as “not directly employed ” people each PB / Emoov / Tepillo / other  agent will have to have their own Rightmove account – and monthly very expensive payments to make to them and any other portals they use?  – and not have different rules that they can all use PB “account”.

    Who is policing these things?

    Report
    1. cybelex

      Didn’t someone just say that Emoov/Tepilo people were directly employed?

      Report
  8. RealAgent

    Russell’s motivation for this piece is fairly obvious I would think, but he is not wrong.

    PB’s property experts are not self employed for any more than taxation purposes. The number I have interviewed for jobs all state that their diaries are downloaded and already completed for them and they are expected to attend at the times designated.Many are now expected to be available core hours and one I spoke to who was looking for flexibility due to family reasons was given the option of doing the hours or going.

     

    Report
  9. AgentQ73

    If and when a LPE decides to test this in court would it be PB or the territory owner they took to court. My understanding is the Territory Owner is “invoiced” by the LPE. Granted I know very little about the law in this area but it looks to me that PB have insulated themselves from any potential actions from LPEs ?

    Report
  10. Sunbeam175

    Do they all have to have their own liability insurance since they are self employed?

    Report
    1. Ostrich17

      Public Liability Insurance is not expensive – if they are registered with TPoS they will need to provide evidence of Professional Indemnity Insurance cover.

      Report
  11. J1

    Lexperts sound more and more like under-paid, under-rewarded slaves to me.

    Come the revolution they will rise up and start their own businesses.

    Arise Spartacus.

    Report
    1. AgencyInsider

      I’m Spartacus!

      Report
  12. Thomas Flowers

    “What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.”
    ― Marcus Tullius Cicero

    pernicious

    having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way.
    “the pernicious influences of the mass media”

    synonyms:
    harmful, damaging, destructive, injurious, hurtful, detrimental, deleterious, dangerous.

     

    Report
  13. Beano200062

    I wonder what Ed Mead thinks of all this? I actually think it is ok for companies to operate in this way, as long as their workers have a choice, as it suits some people (uber no doubt) to be able to work flexibly.

    I know of people in the highly skilled industries (engineering as an example) that have left their jobs and go back to the same employer as a self employed worker, earning substantially more than before. They would not want the law to restrict them doing this.

    However, as above you cannot have it all your own way and this article and the subsequent comments show how certain organisations are abusing the system. I hope to see legal clarity in respect LPE’s as soon as possible.

    Report
  14. smile please

    Slightly off topic but relevant to this perceived ‘hybrid’ movement.

     

    If selling a property for circa £1000 was viable due to economies of scale, why have Countrywide, Sequence, LSL not adopted it?

     

    Answer: Its not viable!

    Report
    1. P-Daddy

      Well they have and haven’t! Countrywide lost millions introducing the 2 choice option, costing them loads of money and the CEO her job and of course LSL have invested ££millions into Yopa and are still there at the moment

      Report
      1. smile please

        I had forgotten that LSL invested in Yopa.

        Report
        1. Thomas Flowers

          Don’t forget ZPG’s main shareholder also have a large stake in YOPA!

          I wonder whether that stake was part of the ZPG sales deal?

          Report
  15. dantheman78

    Peanuts, monkeys, chasing dragons, make your bed, lie in it

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.