The label on the arrangement does not decide it
Calling someone self-employed, having them invoice monthly, or both sides agreeing to it in writing does not settle the question. HMRC and employment tribunals look at what actually happens day to day, not what the contract calls it.
HMRC publishes a genuine tool for this, Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST), and it is a reasonable starting point. It also has known limits on less clear-cut cases, and it does not remove the need to look honestly at how a specific arrangement actually works.
Run the numbers for real
CleanFlo handles the scheduling, invoicing and compliance behind everything in this guide, for £19.99 a month.
Open the demoNo signup, no card · or start the 14-day trial
Send us what you have and we will import it for you, free, during the trial. Ask us to import it
The tests that actually decide it
- Control. Who decides how, when and in what order the work is done. Setting the schedule, dictating the exact method and handing over a checklist to follow all argue employed; someone genuinely free to clean in their own way and order argues self-employed.
- Personal service and substitution. Can they send someone else to do the job without your approval? A genuine, unfettered right of substitution is one of the strongest indicators of self-employment; needing it to always be that specific person argues employed.
- Mutuality of obligation. Are you obliged to offer work and are they obliged to accept it? An ongoing rota with regular expected hours looks like an obligation on both sides even when nothing is written down.
- Equipment and financial risk. Who provides the vacuum, the chemicals and the van? Genuine self-employment usually carries some financial risk and some of the worker’s own equipment.
- Integration. Do they wear your uniform, use a branded van, and would a client reasonably assume they work for your company rather than alongside it as an independent contractor?
Where cleaning businesses most often get it wrong
The profile that most often fails a review is specific and common: a cleaner on a fixed weekly rota, using the company’s equipment and chemicals, following a checklist the company wrote, always the same person on the same client’s account, invoicing monthly and called "self-employed" on that basis alone.
None of those facts individually is disqualifying. Together, they describe a working relationship that looks like employment regardless of what the arrangement is called, and that is exactly the combination HMRC and tribunals have found against repeatedly.
A quick honest check
| Factor | Genuinely self-employed | Looks employed in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Substitution | Can send someone else, no approval needed | Must always be the same named person |
| Schedule | Sets their own hours and order of jobs | A fixed rota the business sets and changes |
| Equipment | Brings their own kit and chemicals | Uses equipment the business provides |
| Risk | Invoices per job, no guaranteed work | On a regular rota, effectively guaranteed hours |
| Other clients | Genuinely works for other businesses too | Works exclusively for one company |
One column matching does not settle it either way. This is a balance of factors, weighed together, which is exactly why a genuinely borderline case is worth a proper check rather than a guess.
What getting it wrong actually costs
- Back-dated holiday pay, potentially several years of it, at 5.6 weeks a year
- Back-dated National Minimum Wage if hours worked exceeded what was effectively paid
- Employer's National Insurance contributions, which HMRC can pursue retrospectively
- Pension auto-enrolment obligations backdated to when they should have applied
- Penalties on top of the arrears, in cases HMRC treats as a clear misclassification rather than a genuine grey area
What to do about it
Review each arrangement honestly against the factors above rather than against what the contract says. Run CEST as a starting point. For anything genuinely borderline, an accountant or employment status specialist is worth the fee before it becomes an HMRC or tribunal question instead of a planning one.
A cleaner correctly engaged as self-employed, with a real right of substitution, their own equipment and other clients, needs nothing changed. The risk sits specifically with arrangements that have drifted into looking like employment while still being called something else.