Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

UK People Reward and Mobility Hub

The latest updates in employment, benefits, pensions and immigration

open menu close menu

UK People Reward and Mobility Hub

  • Home
  • Events
    • Past events
  • Who We Are
    • Meet the team
  • How we can help

National minimum wage: deductions for training and accommodation expenses

By Victoria Middleditch
July 17, 2020
  • National Minimum Wage
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided guidance on deductions from wages for training and accommodation expenses.  The issue arose in the case of Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. Ant Marketing Ltd (UKEAT/0051/19).

The Regulations

Under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), certain deductions from wages will not reduce the amount of pay taken into account when calculating whether employees are paid the national minimum wage (NMW). However deductions for the purpose of accommodation provided by the employer are treated as reductions in pay, if they exceed the accommodation allowance. Deductions in relation to workers’ expenditure in connection with employment are also treated as reductions.

Background

This case concerned Ant Marketing Ltd (Ant), a telemarketing company. On commencement of employment, Ant’s telephone operatives were required to undertake a three-day training course. Under the terms of their employment contracts, operatives who left employment within 12 months were obliged to repay a portion of their training fees, up to £350. Repayments could be deducted directly from workers’ salaries.

In addition, many of Ant’s workers were tenants of residential flats owned by Mayfield Properties Limited (Mayfield). Some of the workers requested that their rent be deducted from their wages and paid directly to Mayfield, although this was not a contractual obligation. The rents were at or below market rates. Both Ant and Mayfield were owned by the same sole shareholder.

HMRC issued Ant with underpayment notices in respect of 359 workers. Ant appealed to the Employment Tribunal (ET), arguing that the proper interpretation of the Regulations was that Mayfield was not the employer so the accommodation offset rules were simply not engaged.

There were two essential questions in this case:

  1. whether, for the purposes of the Regulations, the term “employer” in relation to providing accommodation should be construed more widely to include those connected with an employer; and
  2. whether repayment of the training costs was a deduction which reduced pay for the purposes of NMW.

Accommodation

On the first question, the ET held that the definition of “employer” in the Regulations was exhaustive, and could not include landlords to whom employers are connected. To hold otherwise would effectively mean rewriting the legislation. HMRC appealed to the EAT which upheld the ET’s decision.

However, the EAT went on to suggest that HMRC may have been asking the wrong question. It noted that government guidance indicates there may be a range of situations in which employers can provide accommodation, including where the landlord and the employer are part of the same group of companies or have the same owner. Had the question been whether the employer can be said to be the provider of the accommodation, even though it is not the landlord, the appeal could “quite possibly” have been decided differently.

Training costs

The EAT (again upholding the decision of the ET) held that the deduction of training costs did reduce pay for NMW purposes. Because the training was mandatory, it was akin to compulsory expenditures for uniforms or essential tools. The fact that the employer used repayments as incentives to remain in employment, or that it was a contingent liability, did not change the position. Further, it was erroneous to compare, as Ant had, the repayments to a situation where an employer may charge an employee for failing to return PPE on the termination of employment. Unlike PPE, employees cannot “return” their training.

This case provides helpful authority on the NMW impact of requiring repayment of mandatory training costs, which is a common obligation in employment contracts. Even more interesting are the EAT’s comments, although obiter, that an employer could be responsible for the provision of accommodation without being the landlord. Employers should be aware that, even if they do not own the rental accommodation, they are likely to face scrutiny in respect of any connection they have to the landlord.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Accommodation expenses, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Training deductions
Victoria Middleditch

About Victoria Middleditch

Victoria is an employment lawyer in Dentons' London office. She provides support to businesses on the full range of employment law and human resources issues. Her experience includes advising on commercial transactions and re-organizations (including complex TUPE matters), employment disputes (both tribunal and civil court litigation), team moves, employment contracts and policies, bonus and commission schemes, and general day-to-day human resources issues.

All posts Full bio

You might also like...

  • National Minimum Wage
  • Pay, benefits and bonuses

Employers "named and shamed" for failure to pay the National Minimum Wage

On 9 March 2018 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy named and shamed 179 employers for paying their staff below the National Minimum Wage (NMW). Restaurant chain Wagamama topped the list, but claimed that a misunderstanding as to how the NMW Regulations apply to staff uniforms was to blame.

By Elizabeth Marshall
  • Employment Status
  • Internships
  • National Minimum Wage

The case for and against: should we get rid of unpaid internships?

In our article published this week on HRZone, we consider whether or not the UK should ban unpaid internships. This […]

By Helena Rozman
  • Government Proposals
  • National Minimum Wage
  • Pay, benefits and bonuses

National Minimum Wage Increase

Workers aged over 25 will receive an inflation-busting increase of 33p an hour in their national minimum wage. An above-inflation pay rise of 4.4 per cent starting April 2018 is over the 3 per cent rate of inflation which is in place at the moment. Following this, full-time workers will receive a £600 annual increase.

By Verity Buckingham

About Dentons

Dentons is the world’s largest law firm, delivering quality and value to clients around the globe. Dentons is a leader on the Acritas Global Elite Brand Index, a BTI Client Service 30 Award winner and recognized by prominent business and legal publications for its innovations in client service, including founding Nextlaw Labs and the Nextlaw Global Referral Network. Dentons’ polycentric approach and world-class talent challenge the status quo to advance client interests in the communities in which we live and work. www.dentons.com.

Dentons Largest Global Elite Law Firm

Twitter

Categories

Dentons logo

© 2021 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site