[Stoots]

The next grant has stricter rules though I think.

This is the first You’ve got to say your been impacted by “reduced demand”.

If I could claim I'd be eligible under that criteria, I think most would...

No

Yes

No

[zesty]

Yeah I changed my mind I was was starting to feel very lazy sitting at home I’m not gonna get to the end of all this and lose my Abs 🤣.

Is that the wife?
Compact work, cold water and a Vauxhall Vivaro and you'll have a six pack in no time.

Yeah cold water 💩💩💩 I tell you what I bet there’s some cold water boys out there making a mess of em in this low sun 🤣,proper mess.

Pure water is pure water, doesn’t matter if it’s hot or not.

Hot water doesn’t do anything at all for the quality of clean. Not even a jot of difference to the final finish.

Coca Cola is Coca Cola but I wouldn’t drink it warm ever,if that is you’re opinion and you are entitled to it I take it you’ve never had a hot water system.

Are you on drugs?

[G Griffin]

Another 80% grant for those who need it

Any idea when we can claim???

Are you struggling mate? Have you lost a lot of work?

No  not at all but I had a meeting with my accountant and she's advised me to claim. I'll just keep it in my savings account with the other one just in case times get tough in the future 👍

Looks like a clear case of fraud. If you haven’t been adversely effected and you claim , you have committed fraud .

Who is going to prove that you haven't been adversely affected?
HMRC doesn't even have a definition of 'adversely affected'. They can't say what it means so how are they going to prove that someone isn't adversely affected?

[Ched]

Who is going to prove that you haven't been adversely affected?
HMRC doesn't even have a definition of 'adversely affected'. They can't say what it means so how are they going to prove that someone isn't adversely affected?

That's the problem with HMRC if they have no definition you have no argument!!!! The deck is stacked in HMRC favor! They are one Gov department that forces you to prove your innocence. Which without a definition of 'adversely affected' you can't do!
So be wary, very wary.

[G Griffin]

Who is going to prove that you haven't been adversely affected?
HMRC doesn't even have a definition of 'adversely affected'. They can't say what it means so how are they going to prove that someone isn't adversely affected?

That's the problem with HMRC if they have no definition you have no argument!!!! The deck is stacked in HMRC favor! They are one Gov department that forces you to prove your innocence. Which without a definition of 'adversely affected' you can't do!
So be wary, very wary.

Shrek said 'if you haven't been adversely affected'. That's not the same as 'how have you been adversely affected?'
It's going to harder for them to prove anything when they are relying on us for their information.
There is nothing in Simon's post to say that he hasn't been adversely affected. I don't know how anyone can say that someone else hasn't been adversely affected.
Showing that you've been adversely affected is far easier than another party saying that you haven't.
I doubt many people will be challenged on this if they are reasonable with their reasons and information.

[Arnold Palmer]

The next grant has stricter rules though I think.

This is the first You’ve got to say your been impacted by “reduced demand”.

If I could claim I'd be eligible under that criteria, I think most would...

No

Yes

No

Yes

[Shrek]

If you declare you’ve been effected and you haven’t, it’s fraud.

https://twitter.com/martinslewis/status/1324396248368091139?s=21

[G Griffin]

If you declare you’ve been effected and you haven’t, it’s fraud.

https://twitter.com/martinslewis/status/1324396248368091139?s=21

It depends on who is saying that you haven't been affected. I'm sure there are people that have claimed, wrongly, but it's not fraud; they just mightn't know that they have been adversely affected.
I know a few people that have been adversely affected that didn't claim, too.

[zesty]

Haven’t we been through this 680 million times?

It’s got absolutely nothing  to do with profit/turnover.

You could be having a record year and still legitimately claim.

Martin Lewis has done a whole article on it.

I’ve had a great year, but would have been even better without this pandemic. I’m still a few jobs down. Therefore can legitimately claim.

It’s not about money.

It is about loss of any work, that would have been there had it not been for lockdowns/Covid

[Shrek]

Another 80% grant for those who need it

Any idea when we can claim???

Are you struggling mate? Have you lost a lot of work?

No  not at all but I had a meeting with my accountant and she's advised me to claim. I'll just keep it in my savings account with the other one just in case times get tough in the future 👍

Looks like a clear case of fraud. If you haven’t been adversely effected and you claim , you have committed fraud .

Who is going to prove that you haven't been adversely affected?
HMRC doesn't even have a definition of 'adversely affected'. They can't say what it means so how are they going to prove that someone isn't adversely affected?

Simon said it .... ‘no, not at all...’

[Mike Burd]

Who is going to prove that you haven't been adversely affected?
HMRC doesn't even have a definition of 'adversely affected'. They can't say what it means so how are they going to prove that someone isn't adversely affected?

That's the problem with HMRC if they have no definition you have no argument!!!! The deck is stacked in HMRC favor! They are one Gov department that forces you to prove your innocence. Which without a definition of 'adversely affected' you can't do!
So be wary, very wary.

Shrek said 'if you haven't been adversely affected'. That's not the same as 'how have you been adversely affected?'
It's going to harder for them to prove anything when they are relying on us for their information.
There is nothing in Simon's post to say that he hasn't been adversely affected. I don't know how anyone can say that someone else hasn't been adversely affected.
Showing that you've been adversely affected is far easier than another party saying that you haven't.
I doubt many people will be challenged on this if they are reasonable with their reasons and information.

Unless it changed yesterday, the current term is "reduced demand". If your sales haven't gone down, you've not got reduced demand. Anyone claiming that hasn't experienced a drop in sales is claiming fraudulently in my opinion.

[G Griffin]

Another 80% grant for those who need it

Any idea when we can claim???

Are you struggling mate? Have you lost a lot of work?

No  not at all but I had a meeting with my accountant and she's advised me to claim. I'll just keep it in my savings account with the other one just in case times get tough in the future 👍

Looks like a clear case of fraud. If you haven’t been adversely effected and you claim , you have committed fraud .

Who is going to prove that you haven't been adversely affected?
HMRC doesn't even have a definition of 'adversely affected'. They can't say what it means so how are they going to prove that someone isn't adversely affected?

Simon said it .... ‘no, not at all...’

Not struggling or not losing a lot of work is not not being adversely affected.

[james peters]

I dont think I will be claiming this one.
what if someone in anticipation of what could happen ? ie  loss of customers  . decides to pump time and money into rapidly finding new customers?
have they been affected by covid even though they increased their turnover?

the affect of a downturn they anticipated may only just be starting to happen , or could happen next march?
at the end of the day each individual must decide ..... and it has nowt to do with anyone else

[Arnold Palmer]

Who is going to prove that you haven't been adversely affected?
HMRC doesn't even have a definition of 'adversely affected'. They can't say what it means so how are they going to prove that someone isn't adversely affected?

That's the problem with HMRC if they have no definition you have no argument!!!! The deck is stacked in HMRC favor! They are one Gov department that forces you to prove your innocence. Which without a definition of 'adversely affected' you can't do!
So be wary, very wary.

Shrek said 'if you haven't been adversely affected'. That's not the same as 'how have you been adversely affected?'
It's going to harder for them to prove anything when they are relying on us for their information.
There is nothing in Simon's post to say that he hasn't been adversely affected. I don't know how anyone can say that someone else hasn't been adversely affected.
Showing that you've been adversely affected is far easier than another party saying that you haven't.
I doubt many people will be challenged on this if they are reasonable with their reasons and information.

Unless it changed yesterday, the current term is "reduced demand". If your sales haven't gone down, you've not got reduced demand. Anyone claiming that hasn't experienced a drop in sales is claiming fraudulently in my opinion.

You just spent £10k on advertising didn't you? Did you get the demand you'd expect from that? If not then the demand is reduced.

[G Griffin]

Who is going to prove that you haven't been adversely affected?
HMRC doesn't even have a definition of 'adversely affected'. They can't say what it means so how are they going to prove that someone isn't adversely affected?

That's the problem with HMRC if they have no definition you have no argument!!!! The deck is stacked in HMRC favor! They are one Gov department that forces you to prove your innocence. Which without a definition of 'adversely affected' you can't do!
So be wary, very wary.

Shrek said 'if you haven't been adversely affected'. That's not the same as 'how have you been adversely affected?'
It's going to harder for them to prove anything when they are relying on us for their information.
There is nothing in Simon's post to say that he hasn't been adversely affected. I don't know how anyone can say that someone else hasn't been adversely affected.
Showing that you've been adversely affected is far easier than another party saying that you haven't.
I doubt many people will be challenged on this if they are reasonable with their reasons and information.

Unless it changed yesterday, the current term is "reduced demand". If your sales haven't gone down, you've not got reduced demand. Anyone claiming that hasn't experienced a drop in sales is claiming fraudulently in my opinion.

Further guidance on 'reduced demand' will be forthcoming.
And sales is not demand.

[Slacky]

what if someone in anticipation of what could happen ? ie  loss of customers  . decides to pump time and money into rapidly finding new customers?
have they been affected by covid even though they increased their turnover?

Yes. They've had additional expenses which they otherwise would not have had.

[Stoots]

How does anyone quantify "reduced demand" and how is it proven one way or the other ?

sales/profit is easy, but demand ?

My customer count has gone up, but i have advertised for it. Would i have had a better or worse response if not for covid/lockdown ? ive absoloutely no idea, but i can say ive not been affected. But then again maybe i have been affected and dont know it?

In my opinion demand has gone up from people being at home resulting in more walk ups this year during lockdown than any other. But perhaps this doesnt prove theres an increase in "demand" just maybe more opportunity to engage making it seem like more demand when in fact  the demand might actually be lower 

the problem with HMRC is as usual its as clear as a mud bath in mud town with mrs muddy eating mud pies in a mud hut..

I cant claim it anyway so at least i dont have to worry about whether or not i am commiting fraud.

Im still saying NO though 

[Arnold Palmer]

How does anyone quantify "reduced demand" and how is it proven one way or the other ?

sales/profit is easy, but demand ?

My customer count has gone up, but i have advertised for it. Would i have had a better or worse response if not for covid/lockdown ? ive absoloutely no idea, but i can say ive not been affected. But then again maybe i have been affected and dont know it?

In my opinion demand has gone up from people being at home resulting in more walk ups this year during lockdown than any other. But perhaps this doesnt prove theres an increase in "demand" just maybe more opportunity to engage making it seem like more demand when in fact  the demand might actually be lower 

the problem with HMRC is as usual its as clear as a mud bath in mud town with mrs muddy eating mud pies in a mud hut..

I cant claim it anyway so at least i dont have to worry about whether or not i am commiting fraud.

Im still saying NO though 

Yes.

[NWH]

Fraud 🤣

[Dave Willis]

I’m on track for a record month next month.