Signed off by doc for first time ever. what now?

[WoodYouLike]

What I read in that little sentence is that he's has a limited company, is director of that company and perhaps even the only one working in the limited company.
So, his accountant - which presumably does his payroll etc - is first port of call indeed. so, no waste of money, but getting value for the money he's already paying his accountant

But then again, I could be wrong

 

[WabbitPoo]

What I read in that little sentence is that he's has a limited company, is director of that company and perhaps even the only one working in the limited company.
So, his accountant - which presumably does his payroll etc - is first port of call indeed. so, no waste of money, but getting value for the money he's already paying his accountant

But then again, I could be wrong

Indeed I am.

 

[Goldberg]

What I read in that little sentence is that he's has a limited company, is director of that company and perhaps even the only one working in the limited company.

So, that would make him both an employer and an employee.

So, his accountant - which presumably does his payroll etc - is first port of call indeed.

First port of call? Would make the tea lady the first port of call for a 1st degree burn?

so, no waste of money, but getting value for the money he's already paying his accountant

Why would an accountant be any kind of knowledge base for information on state benefits?

But then again, I could be wrong

Maybe you could, and maybe I could, but I fail to see how implying that I was wrong, when you didn't read my post properly, and when you don't actually know the facts, has any value as contribution.

 

[WoodYouLike]

Sorry you take it as if I'm telling you you were wrong.
I quoted both texts to show how I read it. so, don't read my intentions wrong - you've got your opinion, I've got mine.

What's a tea lady without a first aid diploma?

 

[Goldberg]

What's a tea lady without a first aid diploma?

 

[Thermo]

What I read in that little sentence is that he's has a limited company, is director of that company and perhaps even the only one working in the limited company.

So, that would make him both an employer and an employee.

surely that would make him a director employed by the company, not an employer

 

[Goldberg]

surely that would make him a director employed by the company, not an employer

And, as a Director of that company, he has the responsibilities of an employer.

 

[WabbitPoo]

I'm still here, you know...

 

[WoodYouLike]

I'm still here, you know...

LOL
So shed some light on this then. Are you the only employed director of your own limited company? And does your accountant "act" as your HR department?

(How's the back?)

 

[Thermo]

I'm still here, you know...

of course you are, youre on the sick, you scrounger, youve got sod all else to do!