TC09596 - [2025] UKFTT 00895 (TC)

In terms of the arrangement between fitters in the ‘pool’ for a given store and the Appellant, there was no written agreement and the arrangement was informal. The essence of the arrangement was that the Appellant connected a fitter to a customer who needed fitting services. The fitters had pre-agreed to provide ‘basic’ fitting services at a particular rate, per m2, and the Appellant knew what that “going rate” was. If the actual job was different from that described by the customer in the store, whether additional sums were sought by the fitter and what they were was a matter between the fitter and the customer.

We are satisfied that the Appellant’s role in relation to fitting was limited to an ‘introductory role’, which can be summed up as one where the Appellant essentially told its customers “we do not provide fitting services but we can introduce you to someone who can”. The obligation to fit the flooring then lay with the fitter, and not the Appellant. The Appellant’s Terms and Conditions and the Independent Installer Terms and Conditions make this explicitly clear. More importantly, and in direct contradiction to HMRC’s conclusion in respect of a contractor and subcontractor relationship, the Appellant was not liable to pay the fitter for his work. The payment obligation lay with the customer. Of material relevance, the only reference to fitting costs in the Invoice presented to the customer in the store was to an “estimate”, which was not included in the total sum paid to the Appellant by the customer at the point of sale.