{"id":884603,"date":"2026-01-13T06:11:53","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:11:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2026\/01\/13\/contractor-loses-22k-appeal-over-failing-citb-levy-system\/"},"modified":"2026-01-13T06:11:53","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:11:53","slug":"contractor-loses-22k-appeal-over-failing-citb-levy-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2026\/01\/13\/contractor-loses-22k-appeal-over-failing-citb-levy-system\/","title":{"rendered":"Contractor loses \u00a322k appeal over \u2018failing\u2019 CITB levy system"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"wrapper_sleeve\">\n<p><img width=\"1024\" height=\"684\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.ca.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2018\/02\/skills_apprentices_generic.jpg\" alt=\"Plummeting apprentice starts prompt calls for levy reform\"  decoding=\"async\" fetchpriority=\"high\" ><\/p>\n<div>\n<p><span>A contractor has been ordered to pay almost \u00a322,000 after it lost its appeal against paying the Construction Industry Training Board\u2019s (CITB) levy.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Surrey-based MJL Construction Associates took<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/skills\/citb-cuts-threaten-vital-management-training-09-12-2025\/\"> <span>the CITB<\/span><\/a><span> to an employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds last November to dispute paying levies due for 2021 and 2022.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>According to a judgment in the case, published last week, MJL director Leslie Blay had argued against paying the fee on the grounds that there was \u201ca lack of face-to-face apprenticeship training courses\u201d, while questioning \u201cthe standard of them, the distance to the nearest one and a perceived lack of support\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>He also disputed whether he had been assessed correctly, as he felt the subcontractors he used, who were also registered with the CITB, should be responsible in their own right for paying it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Blay accepted his only legitimate reason for appeal was the CITB\u2019s assessment of his firm, but he told the tribunal that \u201che wanted to complain about the system\u201d and believed it was failing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>All firms with employees who spend more than half of their time on construction activities are required to pay the<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/skills\/employers-back-plan-to-continue-citb-levy-20-05-2025\/\"> <span>CITB levy<\/span><\/a><span>, which funds training development in the industry, particularly for smaller firms.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Contractors are also liable to pay the levy in respect of contract payments to \u201cnet paid\u201d subcontractors.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>However, Blay told the tribunal that his company should not be paying a levy in respect of \u201cbona fide subcontractors\u201d and said they \u201cshould be paying it themselves as they were employers employing their own employees\u201d. He urged the CITB to recoup the fees from them.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Blay also claimed that knowledge of the levy was \u201cpatchy\u201d and told the tribunal companies that should be paying were not doing so, which was leading to other firms paying more.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The CITB\u2019s representative admitted there was \u201cno obligation\u201d on construction employers to declare their eligibility, but said it did have 74,000 firms registered<\/span><span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The training body said it was carrying out research to identify which companies met the criteria and should be registered.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u201cIt was clear from the legislation that the appellant was obliged to pay the levy in respect of net-paid bona fide contractors,\u201d Judge Samantha Moore said.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u201cIn that respect it was not a question of the appellant paying the levy on behalf of those contractors because in many cases they should also be paying a levy themselves.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Moore understood Blay\u2019s complaints about the unfairness of the system, but said \u201cthis is not an argument that can have any traction in this jurisdiction\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The judge ruled that MJL had been correctly assessed and ordered it to pay \u00a321,913.27.<\/p>\n<p>Commenting on the case, a CITB spokesperson said: \u201cMJL Construction Associates Ltd exercised its statutory right to appeal against the 2021 and 2022 levy assessments.<\/p>\n<div>\n<p>\u201cIt did so on the grounds that [\u2026] subcontractors who are registered with CITB in their own right should be responsible for paying the levy on the work being undertaken for MJL Construction Associates Ltd, and not MJL. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis is not the case. The law requires registered employers to declare and be assessed on all payments they make to net CIS subcontractors regardless of their own CITB levy status. This can result in both parties being assessed to levy on the same pieces of work, an approach deemed lawful.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/legal\/contractor-loses-22k-appeal-over-failing-citb-levy-system-12-01-2026\/\" class=\"button purchase\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Read More<\/a><br \/>\n Nicola Harley<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A contractor has been ordered to pay almost \u00a322,000 after it lost its appeal against paying the Construction Industry Training Board\u2019s (CITB) levy. Surrey-based MJL Construction Associates took the CITB to an employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds last November to dispute paying levies due for 2021 and 2022. According to a judgment in the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":884604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26535,1090],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-884603","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-contractor","8":"category-loses"},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/884603","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=884603"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/884603\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/884604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=884603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=884603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=884603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}