Claimant v The Construction Industry Training Board
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an appeal against a construction industry levy imposed under the Industrial Training Act 1982. The tribunal found that the appellant company was engaged in the construction industry (kitchen and bathroom refurbishment constitutes alteration/repair of part of a building), was an employer under the wider statutory definition (including of subcontractors under contracts for services), and that the levy was correctly calculated at £5,147 based on payments to employees and subcontractors. The appeal was dismissed on all three grounds.
Facts
3D Force Ltd was a small company operating under the Construction Industry Scheme, primarily doing kitchen and bathroom refurbishment work as a subcontractor. It had two employees on PAYE (director and his wife) and engaged nine subcontractors. The Construction Industry Training Board imposed a levy of £5,147 on 22 April 2024 based on payments to employees (£16,800) and subcontractors (£407,165). The company appealed on three grounds: that it was not in the construction industry subject to levy, that the levy was incorrectly calculated, and that similar businesses had not been subject to the levy.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the appeal on all three grounds. It found that kitchen installation and refurbishment constitutes alteration/repair of part of a building and therefore falls within the construction industry. The statutory definition of 'employer' includes those engaging subcontractors under contracts for services. The levy calculation was correct, being based on CIS deduction figures which represent an approximation of labour costs excluding materials. The fact that other companies may not have been assessed was irrelevant to whether the rules correctly applied to this appellant.
Practical note
Businesses engaged in kitchen and bathroom fitting/refurbishment are within the construction industry for levy purposes, and 'employer' under the Industrial Training Act includes engagement of subcontractors, not just direct employees.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3308692/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- in house
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No