Mr M Francis & Others v Newcastle City Council — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing about status and jurisdiction in relation to direct payment arrangements for care provided to Mrs Francis. The tribunal found that Mr Michael Francis Snr had voluntarily agreed to act as the section 32 authorised person under the Care Act 2014 direct payments scheme. Although no signed DP3 form was produced, the tribunal found that the arrangement operated on the basis of that scheme, and that Mr Francis was the person who set up the budget, engaged and appointed carers, organised rotas, decided pay, and instructed the payroll provider.

Applying the usual employment-status analysis, including mutuality of obligation and control and the statutory definition in s.230 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that Mr Francis was not a worker for Newcastle City Council but a self-employed person operating the direct payments arrangement. The tribunal rejected his contention that the council controlled the bank account or the arrangement in a way that made it his employer. It found that the council's statutory oversight and auditing responsibilities under the Care Act did not amount to employment control. All claims by Mr Francis against the respondent were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The tribunal also found that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th claimants were employees of Mr Francis, not of the council. It held that he was the person who engaged them, arranged their work, controlled their working arrangements, and ensured that their pay and deductions were handled through the payroll provider. Their claims against Newcastle City Council were dismissed. The judge stated that, if they wished to pursue claims against Mr Francis as their employer, they should apply by 4pm on 23 March 2022 to amend their claims and provide full details and calculations; otherwise the tribunal would consider whether their claims should be struck out in full.