Cases3308692/2024

Claimant v The Construction Industry Training Board

17 April 2025Before Employment Judge DickWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherfailed

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

The Queen on the Application of Bobcat Plant Hire (UK) Ltd v CITB [2003] EWHC 2383 (Admin)Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v CITB [2000] 7 WLUK 838, HC, CO/1318/00

Statutes

Industrial Training Act 1982 s.11Finance Act 2004 s.61Industrial Training Act 1982 s.12(4) and (5)Industrial Training Act 1982 s.1(2)Industrial Training Construction Board Order 1964Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022Finance Act 2004 s.60

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