Business

If you live in an older home, chances are you’ve heard of a back boiler. These were popular heating systems installed behind fireplaces. They provided hot water and heating by burning gas or solid fuel. But today, back boilers are outdated, inefficient, and even unsafe.

So, if you still have one, you might be thinking about replacing it. But how much does it cost to replace a back boiler? The answer isn’t simple. Several factors affect the total price, such as the new system you choose, the condition of your current system, and the size of your home.

In this guide, we’ll break it all down for you. You’ll learn what back boilers are, why they need replacing, and the full cost involved. We’ll also help you understand your options and what to expect during the process.

What Is a Back Boiler?

A back boiler is a small boiler unit that sits behind a fireplace or stove. It heats water for radiators and taps. It became popular in the UK in the 1960s and 70s.

These boilers worked well at the time. But over the years, they’ve proven to be less energy-efficient and harder to maintain than modern systems. Many back boilers are no longer supported or are illegal to repair due to safety rules.

Why Should You Replace a Back Boiler?

Here are the main reasons people go for a back boiler replacement grant:

1. Low Efficiency

Back boilers usually have an energy efficiency rating of around 70%. In comparison, modern condensing boilers can reach over 90%. That means you’re likely wasting energy and paying higher bills with a back boiler.

2. Safety Risks

Some old back boilers, especially the Baxi Bermuda models, were found to be dangerous if not properly maintained. Cracks and leaks can lead to carbon monoxide leaks. Many models are now banned or discontinued.

3. Repair Problems

Replacement parts are hard to find. Skilled engineers who can work on back boilers are also rare. Most professionals recommend removing them altogether.

4. Legal & Compliance Issues

Current building regulations make it almost impossible to fit a new back boiler. If you plan on selling or renting your home, you may have to replace the old system to meet the standards.

What Are the Back Boiler Replacement Options?

When replacing a back boiler, you have three main options. Each one affects the total cost.

1. Combi Boiler

A combi (combination) boiler is the most popular option. It heats water on demand and doesn’t require a hot water cylinder or storage tank. It’s compact and ideal for smaller homes.

Pros:

Saves space
Lower running costs
Energy-efficient

Cons:

May struggle with high hot water demand

2. System Boiler

A system boiler needs a separate hot water cylinder but no cold-water tank. It works well in larger homes where hot water is needed in multiple places at once.

Pros:

Good for homes with multiple bathrooms
Works well with solar panels

Cons:

Takes more space than a combi boiler

3. Regular or Heat-Only Boiler

This is the closest match to your back boiler setup. It uses a hot water cylinder and a cold-water tank. If your house already has this system, it may be cheaper to upgrade this way.

Pros:

Keeps the same layout
Ideal for older properties

Cons:

Less efficient than modern combi boilers

Cost of Back Boiler Replacement

Let’s get to the big question: How much does it cost to replace a back boiler? Here’s a breakdown of all the costs involved.

1. Boiler Unit Cost

Combi Boiler: £1,500 – £2,500
System Boiler: £1,600 – £2,700
Regular Boiler: £1,400 – £2,500

The price depends on the brand, size, and energy rating. Popular brands like Worcester Bosch, Vaillant, and Ideal may cost more but come with longer warranties.

2. Installation Cost

The installation work is often the biggest part of the total cost. A back boiler replacement is not a simple switch. It requires:

Removing the old back boiler
Changing the pipework
Installing the new boiler elsewhere
Sealing off or removing the fireplace
Fixing walls and redecorating

Expect to pay between £2,000 – £3,000 for installation alone.

3. Additional Parts & Labour

You may also need extra materials like:

New flue or plume kit: £100 – £300
New controls or smart thermostat: £100 – £250
Magnetic filter: £100 – £150
Power flush of the system: £300 – £600

Labour and time will also increase if your home has difficult access, outdated pipework, or if you’re moving the boiler far from the original spot.

Total Estimated Cost

Let’s put it all together.

Option
Boiler + Install + Extras

Combi Boiler
£3,500 – £5,000

System Boiler
£3,800 – £5,500

Regular Boiler
£3,400 – £5,000

These are ballpark figures for a standard 2–3 bedroom home in the UK. The final cost depends on your property, location, and choice of boiler.

How Long Does It Take to Replace a Back Boiler?

Most back boiler replacement jobs take 3 to 5 days. Here’s why:

Day 1–2: Removing the old boiler and fireplace work
Day 3–4: Installing the new boiler and connecting new pipes
Day 5: Testing, power flushing, and final checks

If there are complications, it may take longer. But a trained engineer can give a clearer time estimate after inspecting your home.

Can I Get Help with the Cost?

Yes! Several UK schemes can help with the cost of back boiler replacement:

1. Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS)

This helps homeowners switch to low-carbon heating. You could get up to £7,500 for replacing your boiler with a heat pump or renewable system.

2. ECO4 Scheme

If you’re on certain benefits, you may qualify for a free boiler replacement under the Energy Company Obligation scheme. This includes removing back boilers in some cases.

3. Finance Options

Many boiler companies offer payment plans or 0% finance. This can help you spread the cost over 2 to 10 years.

What Happens to the Fireplace?

Since back boilers sit behind fireplaces, you’ll have to deal with the space they leave behind. You have several options:

Block it off completely and plaster over it
Install an electric fire for decoration
Add a cupboard or feature wall

Some homeowners even choose to install a wood-burning stove in the space. Just make sure your installer seals off the chimney properly to avoid draughts or safety issues.

Do I Need Planning Permission?

In most cases, you don’t need planning permission for a back boiler replacement. However:

If your home is listed or in a conservation area, check with your local authority
You’ll need a Gas Safe-registered engineer for any gas work
Building regulations apply to all boiler installations

Always make sure your installer provides a Building Regulations Compliance Certificate after the job is done.

Common Questions About Back Boiler Replacement

Q: Can I repair my old back boiler instead of replacing it?

A: In most cases, no. Replacement parts are rare, and many back boilers are no longer legal to repair.

Q: Is it cheaper to keep my hot water tank?

A: Sometimes. If you choose a system or regular boiler, you can use your current tank. But if it’s old, replacing it may still be best.

Q: What’s the best boiler for replacing a back boiler?

A: For smaller homes, a combi boiler is ideal. For larger homes, a system boiler may be better.

Final Thoughts

Replacing a back boiler is a big job. But it’s often necessary for safety, efficiency, and comfort. While it may cost between £3,500 and £5,500, the long-term savings on your energy bills make it worth it.

Choosing the right system depends on your home’s size, layout, and hot water needs. A registered installer can help you pick the best option and handle the process safely.

Whether you go for a combi, system, or regular boiler, make sure to compare prices, ask for warranties, and check if you qualify for any Eco4 Scheme grants.

Back boiler replacement might seem costly up front, but it’s a smart move for a warmer, safer, and more efficient home.

Read more:
How Much Does It Cost to Replace a Back Boiler?

Pub operators and hospitality leaders have warned that Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ expected tax raid on gaming machines could inflict serious damage on an industry already battling soaring costs, staff shortages and fragile consumer confidence.

With speculation mounting that the Chancellor will sharply increase Machine Gaming Duty (MGD) in the November 26 Budget, trade bodies say the move risks pulling away one of the last remaining revenue supports for thousands of community pubs.

Fruit machines have been part of Britain’s pub culture for more than 50 years, and although their numbers have declined since their heyday, they remain an essential income stream. According to UKHospitality, almost 36,700 fruit and slot machines operate across nearly half of the UK’s pubs, generating £622 million annually. Once taxes, supplier rent and other charges are deducted, operators are left with an estimated £385 million — or roughly £8,500 per pub — at a time when margins are already “wafer thin”.

Fears have intensified following reports that Reeves is preparing significant increases in gambling taxes to help plug a £30 billion hole in the public finances. Proposals being discussed include raising sports betting duties from 15% to 30% and lifting duty on machine and online slots from 20% to 50%. For pubs, whose gaming machines are low-stakes and incidental to their core trade, industry leaders say such a jump would be devastating.

Lawson Mountstevens, managing director of Heineken-owned Star Pubs, said pubs are already under “tremendous pressure” following last year’s steep rise in Employer National Insurance and the national minimum wage. “Our low-stakes machines are an important revenue stream. Any move that erodes their value puts further strain on our ability to serve communities up and down the UK.”

That sentiment is shared across the sector. James Baer, executive chairman of Amber Taverns, said increasing MGD for machines that are “ancillary” to pubs’ main purpose would be another “unwelcome setback” after what he described as a “savage attack” on hospitality last year.

Greene King chief executive Nick Mackenzie warned that the measure may “inadvertently be the tipping point” for pubs already grappling with an “avalanche of costs”. The British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) estimates a rise in MGD to 50% would cost pubs £187 million a year, equivalent to 16,300 jobs.

Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the BBPA, said the impact could be catastrophic. “These are low-margin businesses that create huge numbers of jobs for young people. Any increase in the cost of doing business brings them closer to closing their doors for good.”

Analysts believe listed pub companies could also face significant hits. At JD Wetherspoon — already absorbing £60 million in additional annual costs due to labour changes — Peel Hunt analyst Douglas Jack estimates a move to 50% MGD would cost the group £18 million. Founder Sir Tim Martin said gaming machines may represent a small portion of Wetherspoon’s sales, but remain “an important part of pub economics” and are “already highly taxed”. Another increase would be “another straw on the camel’s back”.

The industry fears the government’s calculations are flawed. Rather than bringing in more revenue, higher taxes could make many machines unprofitable, prompting their removal and actually reducing the total tax take. Chris Jowsey, chief executive of Admiral Taverns, warned the move would have a “devastating impact”, cutting income for pubs in areas where alternative revenue streams are limited. At Admiral Taverns’ 1,300 pubs, machines currently generate around £6,000 net revenue per year; under the proposed tax rate, this would fall to £2,625.

Alongside financial pressures, industry leaders say the timing could not be worse. New projections from the BBPA suggest 332 pubs will have closed by the time the Chancellor delivers her Budget. The concern is that an MGD rise will accelerate the decline of one of Britain’s most cherished community institutions.

Trade bodies including the BBPA and UKHospitality are now urging the government to freeze duty on Category C low-stakes fruit machines and Category D arcade-style penny fall machines — both of which are disproportionately used in pubs and leisure venues.

Kate Nicholls, chairwoman of UKHospitality, said that for many pubs, machine income has become “increasingly important” as they deal with spiralling operational costs. Raising MGD on these machines, she said, would be “detrimental” to the long-term health of the sector.

A Treasury spokesperson said tax decisions will be announced at the Budget, adding that its consultation on gambling taxation is focused on remote betting websites, which employ fewer people, have lower costs, and deliver higher profits than traditional venues.

Industry leaders remain unconvinced. “This would not deliver the intended yields,” Jowsey said. “It would accelerate pub closures, cut jobs, hollow out high streets and likely reduce the overall tax take. It would feel like the rug is being pulled out from beneath community pubs.”

Read more:
Reeves’ fruit machine tax ‘would gamble with pubs’ futures’, industry warns

When I first started taking clients out for dinner, you could sit under the copper dome of Le Gavroche, order a bottle of claret you’d never dare drink at home, and—after a couple of courses, a soufflé, and a few discreet nods from the maître d’—leave only mildly lighter in wallet and spirit.

Today, on the same site, you can do much the same thing at Matt Abé’s new venture Bonheur. Only now, the bill for two will come in at £250 before you’ve even blinked at the digestif list.

I’m not one for false nostalgia—restaurants must evolve, chefs must be paid, and if anyone’s earned the right to resurrect a Mayfair temple of gastronomy it’s Abé. But there’s a creeping sense that fine dining has priced itself into absurdity. And for once, it’s not just about greedy restaurateurs; it’s about the country we’ve built around them.

Energy bills have soared. Not just yours or mine, but those of restaurants that rely on gas ranges, endless refrigeration, and enough light to flatter every banker’s jowls. Add to that the cost of labour in an industry already haemorrhaging staff post-Brexit, and suddenly that tasting menu looks less like an indulgence and more like a desperate act of financial survival.

The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, would like us to believe that things are finally “stabilising”. I’ve seen more stability in a soufflé during a Tube strike. Her Treasury may be trying to keep business afloat, but when small restaurants are seeing energy costs double, the effect is akin to throwing a life jacket to a man who’s already under the water.

Fine dining, long the glitzy tip of the hospitality iceberg, is the first to feel the cracks. It was never about volume or turnover; it was about art. A kitchen like Abé’s depends on precision, patience, and prodigiously expensive ingredients that can’t be bought in bulk. When your butter alone costs more than most people’s rent, “value for money” ceases to be a meaningful phrase.

Once upon a time, £160-£180 for two was a generous way to mark a birthday or sign a contract. Now it’s merely the entry fee for breathing the same air as a Michelin inspector. And before the chorus begins: yes, I know what goes into it. I’ve sat in enough stainless-steel kitchens to appreciate the choreography of twenty cooks plating thirty dishes in silence. I know the rent in Mayfair. I know what happens to a menu when olive oil triples in price.

But—and forgive the sentimentality—I also know what a restaurant used to mean. At Le Coq d’Argent or Claridge’s or Marcus Wareing’s at the Berkeley, you could justify the expense as part theatre, part negotiation. It was business done in a place that made everyone feel like someone. You weren’t buying food; you were buying atmosphere, attention, and a tiny square of London’s self-confidence.

Today, that same dinner feels faintly transactional. The food is exquisite, the wine list terrifyingly precise, and yet something human has been lost. When you know a single starter costs as much as the average family’s weekly shop, the pleasure sours slightly. The magic evaporates with the steam from the consommé.

Reeves’ problem—indeed, the country’s problem—is that we’ve stopped treating restaurants as part of the cultural ecosystem. When energy prices bite, when VAT hovers at the same rate as fast food, and when landlords charge what they like, the effect isn’t just fewer Michelin stars; it’s fewer apprentices, fewer suppliers, fewer reasons for tourists to bother crossing the Channel for dinner.

You can’t build an “innovation economy” on empty stomachs. Yet that’s what we seem to be trying. The government talks endlessly about growth while allowing one of Britain’s finest export industries—its hospitality scene—to suffocate under the weight of its own bills. Paris subsidises its bistros. Copenhagen practically canonises its chefs. In London, we just raise the price of the tasting menu and pretend everything’s fine.

Of course, there will always be those for whom £250 is a rounding error. The same crowd who will book Bonheur weeks ahead and post filtered shots of their langoustine tartlets. They’re not the problem. The problem is the steady disappearance of the middle ground—the diners who once treated a grand restaurant as a reachable luxury. Those people are now in bistros, if they’re out at all, calculating the cost of bread service.

When I took clients to the Savoy or Claridge’s, it wasn’t just about indulgence; it was diplomacy. Deals were signed over lamb cutlets and laughter. You can’t do that if your guest is nervously Googling “how much to tip on £500”. Fine dining relied on aspiration, not intimidation.

Perhaps we should stop pretending fine dining is for everyone. Let it be what it now is: haute couture, admired from afar. But if we do, we must also accept that Britain loses something. Our restaurants have long been the quiet stages of our national life—places where ambition met artistry, where even a tax accountant could feel momentarily glamorous.

Reeves can’t control every gas bill, but she can recognise that hospitality is not a luxury to be tolerated; it’s a craft to be preserved. Energy relief for small restaurants, tax breaks for training, a re-think of VAT for the sector—none of it would cost much compared to the cultural value at stake.

Because once the £250 dinner becomes the norm, it stops being dinner. It becomes a ceremony for the few, performed behind heavy curtains while the rest of us eat at home and wonder when exactly Britain forgot how to go out.

Read more:
Fine dining’s death by a thousand cuts, and at least a £250 bill

Stepping away from a successful career in technology to pursue a long-held creative ambition is no small leap, yet that is precisely what Sarah Haran did.

Today, she heads the British luxury accessories brand that bears her name, celebrated for workmanship, colour and a modular design concept that gives customers “one bag, endless looks”.

From her studio to the atelier in Istanbul where each piece is crafted by hand from Italian leather, Haran has created a label defined not just by design but by purpose: handbags that bring joy to women’s lives, offering both style and versatility. With a loyal following across the UK and US, she has carved out a niche rooted in quality, creativity and customer connection.

What do you currently do at Sarah Haran Accessories?

As Founder and CEO, Haran occupies the unusual space where corporate discipline meets creative freedom. She continues to design every collection, guide the brand’s creative direction and oversee marketing, ensuring that each touchpoint reflects the central values of joy, versatility and craftsmanship.

“No two days are the same,” she says. “I might be reviewing new samples in the morning and hosting a live styling session in the afternoon. That blend of communication and creativity is what energises me.”

Her focus, she explains, is unwavering: to make handbags that are as functional as they are beautiful. From leather quality to colour palette to how each piece adapts to a customer’s day, Haran is closely involved in every detail. “Everything comes back to one idea — making women’s lives easier, while bringing them joy.”

What was the inspiration behind your business?

The spark came from a personal frustration: the struggle to find a handbag that was luxurious yet practical, stylish yet adaptable. “I wanted something that could evolve with my day without needing to change bags,” Haran says. This desire became the foundation of her modular handbag system, enabling women to customise their look with interchangeable accessories.

Two years of development followed, working with expert craftspeople to refine every element until function and elegance sat perfectly in balance. The result is a collection designed not only to suit any occasion but to empower its wearer.

Her purpose remains clear. “We talk about bringing women ‘bags of joy’ — and that comes from listening to our customers. Their stories, how the bags fit into their lives, inspire me constantly. It’s about much more than handbags — it’s about helping women feel confident, organised and joyful every day.”

Who do you admire?

Haran’s influences are wide-ranging, anchored in respect for women who embody resilience, ambition and kindness. “My mother showed me that drive and compassion can absolutely go hand-in-hand,” she reflects.

She cites admiration for the Queen’s quiet loyalty and sense of duty, Victoria Beckham’s reinvention and work ethic, and Katie Piper’s extraordinary courage and optimism. She also acknowledges broadcaster Anthea Turner for her generous support of the brand and her ability to remain relevant with grace.

Closer to home, Haran praises Lynne Kennedy of Business Women Scotland for her work championing female entrepreneurs. But it is her own customers who, she says, inspire her most deeply. “Some have been with us since the very beginning. Their loyalty and encouragement are a constant source of motivation.”

Looking back, is there anything you would have done differently?

“If anything, I’d have started sooner,” Haran admits. “Building a brand takes far longer than people expect — it’s years of learning, refining and staying resilient.”

Yet she is quick to acknowledge the value of her previous career. Her years in technology taught her discipline, strategic thinking and the structural foundations needed to scale a business sustainably. “So while an earlier start might have accelerated growth, I’m grateful for what those corporate years gave me.”

If she could advise her younger self, she’d keep it simple: be patient, learn constantly, and recognise that each challenge strengthens the path ahead. “Every day really is a school day — the journey is longer and harder than you imagine, but every lesson counts.”

What defines your way of doing business?

One word, Haran says, sums it up: joy. It runs through her designs, her brand communications and her approach to customer relationships. “Luxury shouldn’t feel cold or distant,” she explains. “It should feel uplifting, thoughtful and genuinely personal.”

She places strong emphasis on fairness, kindness and creativity, prioritising long-term relationships over quick wins. Whether working with her team, suppliers or customers, the goal is to build a brand that people enjoy being part of.

“The business was founded on the idea of joy, and that continues to guide every decision. When you lead with joy, it changes the way you design, work and grow.”

What advice would you give to someone starting out?

Her first piece of advice is deceptively simple: begin before you feel ready. “There’s no perfect moment,” she says. “Progress comes from taking action, not waiting.”

She recommends finding a clear sense of purpose, something steady to return to on difficult days. For Haran, that purpose is helping women feel confident through design.

She also stresses the importance of surrounding yourself with people who share your values, who challenge you in the right ways, and who believe in your vision. “Listen to advice, but trust your instincts. Stay curious. Building a business is constant learning — and you simply don’t know what you don’t know. Forgive yourself as you go.”

Read more:
Getting to know you: Sarah Haran, Founder & CEO, Sarah Haran Accessories

Female entrepreneurs across the UK are working longer hours, taking on second jobs and facing renewed financial strain as economic pressures mount, according to a major new study from Tide and everywoman.

The Female Business Owners Index 2025 reveals that 39 per cent of women founders say this year has been harder than 2024, with falling consumer spending, inflation and political uncertainty continuing to squeeze margins and stall growth.

Despite the tough trading environment, the research paints a picture of extraordinary resilience. A growing number of women are pushing themselves harder to keep their businesses afloat, with more than half now working longer hours and almost one in four taking a second job to sustain their ventures. Many say the economic climate has made entrepreneurship increasingly demanding, with weaker household spending power affecting more than a third of women-led companies. Inflationary pressures and political instability have also contributed to a challenging year.

Even so, optimism remains strikingly strong. Two-thirds of female entrepreneurs expect their revenues to rise over the next 12 months, and nearly one in five believe the year ahead could be transformational, predicting revenue increases of up to 100 per cent. Rather than waiting for conditions to improve, many are pursuing bold expansion strategies, exploring new markets, investing in digitisation and looking to grow their teams. There is also a renewed focus on upskilling, with a significant proportion of founders identifying training and capability building as essential to their growth plans.

However, access to finance remains one of the most persistent barriers facing women in business. Despite their ambition, female founders continue to receive a disproportionately small share of UK investment, with just two pence in every pound of equity funding going to women-led ventures.

Nearly a third of the women surveyed said that the difficulty of securing loans or investment capital is limiting their ability to scale, while many called for targeted grants and tax relief to help navigate the economic environment. Confidence also plays a role, with a quarter of respondents admitting that self-doubt has held them back, and a similar proportion citing gaps in operational or financial knowledge as impediments.

Tide, which has spent the past three years supporting thousands of women through its Women in Business programme, says targeted support remains essential. The company is on track to meet its pledge of helping launch 200,000 female-led businesses by 2027 and has joined forces with everywoman on a new year-long initiative designed to equip women entrepreneurs with the practical tools, contacts and confidence they need to scale.

The report’s findings will also inform the Tide everywoman Entrepreneur Awards, where one exceptional female-founded small business will receive a £20,000 grant to accelerate growth. The awards, held in association with BGF, take place on 2 December at The Londoner in Leicester Square.

George Schmidt, CEO of Tide UK/Europe, said the findings demonstrate the determination of women entrepreneurs across the country. He said that many are working harder than ever, taking on additional jobs and still maintaining the ambition to grow, noting that “the fortitude of women entrepreneurs across the UK is remarkable”. He added that Tide remains committed to breaking down the barriers that hinder women’s success.

Nicole Goodwin, joint managing director of AllBright everywoman, said that female founders were showing “true grit” and that their optimism was not misplaced but strategic, enabling women-led companies to remain a force for innovation despite the headwinds.

Among the founders featured in the report was Fallon Nelson, who runs inclusive lingerie brand Empress Me Intimates. She said access to funding had been one of her biggest challenges, even with strong demand and proven need. She remains optimistic, however, and plans to continue growing her community through events, storytelling campaigns and collaborations while she continues to seek financial backing.

Read more:
Quarter of female business owners take second jobs as economic pressures intensify, Tide and everywoman report shows

A British man jailed in the United States for hacking the Twitter accounts of high-profile figures including Barack Obama and Jeff Bezos has been ordered to hand over £4.1 million in cryptocurrency linked to his crimes.

Joseph James O’Connor, 26, was sentenced in the US last year after admitting to his role in a sophisticated cyberattack that saw him gain access to dozens of celebrity and corporate Twitter accounts. He used the compromised profiles to promote fraudulent Bitcoin schemes, scamming victims worldwide. O’Connor also threatened several celebrities with the release of private messages and images unless they paid him in cryptocurrency.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now secured a Civil Recovery Order to seize 42 Bitcoin — along with other digital assets — that O’Connor obtained through the scheme. The recovered cryptocurrency is worth approximately £4.1 million at today’s market value.

The CPS Proceeds of Crime Division worked closely with agencies in the United States and Spain, where O’Connor was arrested, to ensure he could not conceal or transfer the assets before the order was enforced.

Adrian Foster, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS Proceeds of Crime Division, said the action demonstrates the reach of UK authorities even when offenders are convicted overseas.

“Joseph James O’Connor targeted well-known individuals and used their accounts to scam people out of their crypto assets and money,” he said. “We were able to use the full force of our powers to ensure that even when someone is not convicted in the UK, we can still prevent them from benefiting from their criminality.”

O’Connor was a central figure in the July 2020 Twitter breach, one of the platform’s most significant security failures. The attack compromised accounts belonging to political leaders, billionaires, celebrities and major brands, prompting international investigations and widespread concern over the security of social media platforms.

Read more:
Twitter hacker ordered to repay £4.1m in Bitcoin after celebrity account scam

UK businesses are preparing for renewed uncertainty as the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) returns to the House of Lords today, with new research suggesting confidence in a swift resolution is almost non-existent.

A survey by compliance firm VinciWorks has found that just 3 per cent of senior HR, compliance and business leaders believe the Lords will retreat from their opposition to key provisions in the legislation, including day-one employment rights and proposed changes to trade union rules.

The poll, which gathered responses from 190 HR and compliance professionals, CEOs and in-house counsels, reveals deep concern across UK industry. One in five respondents expects the legislation to fail entirely, while 12 per cent believe the government will resort to using the Parliament Act, a move that would delay implementation until at least next year. A further 40 per cent anticipate a compromise between the Lords and Commons — an outcome ministers have so far been unwilling to entertain.

Nick Henderson-Mayo, head of compliance at VinciWorks, warned that the government’s stance risks prolonging instability for employers. He said ministers were “backing themselves into a corner” by refusing to negotiate, despite the sweeping scale of the reforms. “The Employment Rights Bill is the biggest change to workers’ rights in decades,” he noted. “Employers deserve to have their voices heard over proposals that will be very difficult to implement.”

Opposition in the Lords is focused primarily on the government’s push to extend unfair dismissal protection to day one of employment, along with wide-ranging provisions for zero-hours workers and rules governing political donations to trade unions. With large majorities expected to vote against the government again, many employers say they remain stuck in regulatory limbo.

VinciWorks’ findings show widespread concern about the bill’s wider implications. Almost 60 per cent of respondents believe they will need to strengthen their workplace sexual harassment policies, while two-thirds say they will have to introduce new staff training programmes to prepare for the sweeping changes contained in the ERB. However, many say they cannot progress these plans while the dispute over unfair dismissal rules continues.

Henderson-Mayo pointed out that even previous Labour governments accepted the need for a qualifying period for unfair dismissal. “The Employment Protection Act of 1975 reduced the qualifying period to six months. Today it stands at two years. Clearly, there is space to compromise and allow businesses time to prepare.”

The government has already launched multiple consultations on elements of the bill, including proposals affecting the rights of pregnant women and new mothers, as well as requirements for menopause action plans. But with nearly one in five business leaders believing the bill may fail altogether, many fear they are investing time and money preparing for reforms that could ultimately be abandoned.

“Staff and bosses want confidence in the employment system,” Henderson-Mayo added. “If the government and parliament cannot compromise, it increases the likelihood of the rules being rewritten again in a few years. The ERB is important — but perhaps it’s time for some grown-up government.”

Read more:
Only 3% of business leaders believe the Lords will back down in Employment Rights Bill fight, survey finds

Businesses and financial experts have sharply criticised a potential clampdown on salary sacrifice pension benefits in the upcoming Budget, warning that the move would amount to a stealth rise in Employer National Insurance and leave companies with even fewer ways to manage rising employment costs.

Rumours are circulating that the Chancellor could introduce a dramatic cap on the amount employees can sacrifice into their pensions, with some suggesting the annual allowance could be cut to as little as £2,000. Salary sacrifice agreements allow employees to give up part of their gross pay in exchange for non-cash benefits such as pension contributions. Because the adjustment is made before tax and National Insurance are calculated, both employers and employees reduce their NI liabilities.

While the Treasury is seeking ways to plug a significant fiscal gap, businesses warn that dismantling salary sacrifice would hit firms at a time when wage pressures are already intense. Many fear that if pension sacrifice becomes restricted, electric vehicle salary sacrifice schemes could be next, undermining one of the most effective levers employers have used to boost green transport adoption.

There is also deep uncertainty about when any changes would take effect. Some sources believe the government may act immediately on Budget Day; others think the cut could be delayed until April 2026. If implemented next year, employers may rush to lock in salary sacrifice arrangements before the window closes.

Luke James, Tax Director at Sheffield-based Gravitate Accounting, said capping the allowance would remove a critical financial tool when businesses need it most. “In today’s tight labour market and cost-sensitive business environment, removing or capping salary sacrifice will strip employers of a crucial flexibility lever,” he said. “Salary sacrifice is vital right now because it’s one of the few tools employers have to manage rising costs while still offering competitive, meaningful benefits. It allows firms to offer stronger benefits without increasing payroll spend, and it helps support employees’ financial wellbeing in a tax-efficient way.”

Chartered Wealth Manager Philly Ponniah, of Philly Financial, said any cap would feel like a tax hike in disguise rather than a move towards fairness. She warned that the consequences could extend far beyond pensions, with employers forced to rethink reward strategies and green transport schemes placed at risk. She also pointed out that parents earning around £100,000 may lose access to funded childcare hours, since salary sacrifice often keeps them under the threshold. “The timing question only adds stress,” she said. “If changes happen on Budget Day, businesses will have no time to prepare. Firms need stability, not surprise rule changes.”

Others warned of unintended consequences for the wider economy. Benjamin Woodhouse, co-owner of Balguard Engineering Ltd, said the proposal looked like “a headline grab with little thought behind it”, and questioned how the restriction might affect the car industry if EV schemes are eventually included. He fears Labour may gain only a marginal revenue boost while inflicting far greater damage on sectors reliant on vehicle leasing and employee mobility.

Financial adviser Michelle Lawson, Director at Lawson Financial in Fareham, expressed frustration at the growing instability surrounding tax and employment policy. “How anyone can plan beyond tomorrow now is beyond me,” she said. “Businesses plan months or years ahead around progression, investment and resource, and the Government may be about to throw further spanners into the works. Salary sacrifice benefits are tax-efficient but also help protect the workforce and keep them medically fit and in work. Removing them could make retention even harder.”

With the Budget only days away, businesses say they need clarity — and fear that a sudden move could undermine recruitment, employee wellbeing and long-term financial planning just as economic pressures on employers reach their peak.

Read more:
Businesses warn Budget cap on salary sacrifice pensions would remove “one of the few tools employers have to manage rising costs”

More than 60 leading operators of serviced offices, business centres and co-working spaces have warned Chancellor Rachel Reeves that recent changes to the business rates system could force thousands of companies to the brink and place jobs across the UK at risk.

In a letter seen by Business Matters, the group, which collectively hosts over 27,000 businesses nationwide,  expressed “urgent and deeply serious concern” over what they described as a quiet but dramatic shift in how the Government calculates business rates for flexible workspaces.

At the centre of the dispute is a major change by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which has begun treating flexible workspaces as single properties for rating purposes rather than as individual units. This shift means operators and occupiers face significantly higher bills, and tenants can no longer claim key reliefs such as small business rates relief.

According to operators, the reclassification has been introduced without consultation, and in some cases applied retroactively — with backdated bills reportedly reaching up to £400,000.

Jane Sartin, executive director of the Flexible Space Association (FlexSA), said the change was placing the future of many centres in jeopardy: “This sudden reclassification has been introduced without consultation and is already putting the future of many workspaces in jeopardy. Over 150,000 SMEs are losing the reliefs they depend on. Many centres are now on the brink.”

She warned that those who survive may be forced to pass on the cost increases directly to the small businesses they host — a move that could further strain SMEs already facing rising taxes, inflation and energy costs.

FlexSA said the VOA has refused to offer guidance or clarity on its approach, adding to the sector’s uncertainty at a time when demand for flexible workspace remains high.

The VOA has said the change follows developments in case law, including Prosser v Ricketts (2024), Cardtronics v Sykes (2020) and Ludgate House v Ricketts (2019). Operators argue these rulings do not apply to serviced offices and accuse the agency of making sweeping policy changes through valuation practice rather than legislation.

There are more than 4,000 flexible workspace centres across the UK, providing essential space to freelancers, start-ups and growing SMEs. Industry organisations warn that closures could lead to reduced workspace availability, undermine entrepreneurial activity and hollow out high streets already struggling to recover from pandemic-era disruption.

The National Enterprise Network, which represents local enterprise agencies, said the changes could “trigger widespread business failures”, adding that the sector is still recovering from the long-term effects of Covid.

Tim Attridge, head of UK rating at CBRE, said the business rates system is outdated and ill-equipped for the modern workspace economy: “Rather than making changes to the methodology now, the VOA should cease merging and backdating assessments until the basis of valuation is established through the appropriate litigation.”

A VOA spokeswoman told Business Matters that recent case law required the agency to review how serviced offices are assessed: “Developments in case law have meant we have had to review the way serviced offices are assessed. Many may now need to be treated as a single property depending on their contractual arrangements.”

She added that the VOA is engaging with industry representatives but must apply the law based on individual cases.

Operators say the Chancellor must intervene to prevent widespread closures and protect a sector that supports hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country.

Read more:
Serviced office operators warn chancellor that property tax changes threaten thousands of small businesses

A 15-year-old British entrepreneur has been crowned the Grand Winner of Alibaba.com’s CoCreate Pitch, securing a $200,000 prize for his innovative small business, CoolTowel, at the platform’s flagship B2B event in London.

Held on 14 November, CoCreate Europe brought together thousands of SMEs from across the continent, with 30 finalists shortlisted to pitch their product innovations to a panel of global business leaders. Each finalist was tasked with delivering a 90-second pitch to win the competition’s top accolade.

Following what judges described as a “fantastic pitch” and a “brilliant product”, Harrison Nott, from Essex, was named Grand Winner for his CoolTowel, a reusable cooling towel designed to provide instant relief during workouts, hot weather, travel and outdoor activities.

Despite his age, Harrison has already built an impressive enterprise: CoolTowel generates £200,000 in annual turnover, and his entrepreneurial journey — documented on social media — has attracted more than 50,000 followers and millions of views. He credits early encouragement and support from his parents for fuelling his passion for business.

Alongside the Grand Winner, 10 additional finalists were highly commended, each receiving $20,000 in prizes for their innovations. These were:
• UK: Nutri Troops, Intotum, HUID
• France: Azza Fencing, Opack, Portalo
• Germany: TRAINOM, RAZECO, Garados Swimwear
• Italy: Reeflex

This year marked the inaugural European edition of CoCreate Pitch. Alibaba.com reported an exceptionally high quality of entries, with British SMEs standing out for their commitment to sustainability: 18% of UK submissions featured environmental concepts, outperforming France, Italy and Germany.

Together, CoCreate Pitch Europe and CoCreate Pitch Vegas have now awarded $1 million in global prize funding, bringing together more than 4,000 SMEs across the two events. The programme reflects Alibaba.com’s focus on accelerating SME growth, helping businesses adopt AI-driven sourcing tools and unlocking new international opportunities.

Speaking after his win, Harrison said: “I’m speechless. I have worked so hard to get here and didn’t expect to win. I couldn’t be more grateful to Alibaba.com for the opportunity.”

Kuo Zhang, President of Alibaba.com, praised the calibre of entries: “CoCreate Europe celebrated the very best of SME product innovation. The creativity and fresh thinking on display were inspiring, and we have a one-of-a-kind winner in Harrison Nott and CoolTowel.

“At Alibaba.com, we are committed to helping SMEs fulfil their growth ambitions by democratising AI tools and digital sourcing.”

Read more:
15-year-old Harrison Nott named Grand Winner of Alibaba.com’s CoCreate Pitch, taking home $200,000 prize