After three years, over a billion dollars still need to be repaid by companies despite initial wage support

• Lisa Schallenberg

  editor Economics

• Anne Pruss

  economics editor

It has been more than three years since the historic support package for companies was announced due to the corona crisis. The government transferred billions of euros to entrepreneurs, without too many questions and prior checks. The UWV is still busy processing it.

The largest part of the package consisted of wage support, which was intended to prevent layoffs. In retrospect, about 70 percent of the companies were paid too high an amount in the first seven months afterwards. A total of 3.9 billion euros was transferred too much in that period, according to figures from the UWV.

Has that been refunded? The NOS asked fifty recipients who have to repay the most over the first six months of 2020 whether they have already repaid it. The vast majority have done so, a small number have not yet. A number of companies do not want to respond (substantively) to questions.

Here you can see how much support was overpaid and whether it has since been refunded:

It is not surprising that companies applied for far too much wage support in the first half of the year. At the start of the corona pandemic, when much was still unclear about the consequences, many entrepreneurs had a very gloomy estimate of their turnover for that year.

But for many companies, this gloom turned out to be unjustified. By far the majority of them returned the excess money received to the UWV in one go, about 65 percent.

“The impact of covid was ultimately much less than expected, and even positive due to the enormous rise of e-commerce-related business,” says a spokesperson for luggage manufacturer VanderLande. “As soon as we found out, we submitted the application to reimburse the NOW. Everything has already been reimbursed in March 2021.”

Not all companies transferred the excess money received in one go. A third of the companies use a payment arrangement. There are also companies that did well in corona time.

For example, car company Broekhuis Dealer. That company had initially applied for 3.3 million euros, because they did not expect things to go so well in the second half of 2020.

The company also prospered in the following period: between 2019 and 2021, profits almost doubled, partly thanks to a number of acquisitions. Broekhuis Dealer says that it has nevertheless opted for a payment arrangement, “because it concerns a large amount”.

Secondment agency Voort also uses a payment scheme for 2.4 million euros in excess support received from NOW2. “That is in accordance with the conditions offered by the government,” the company said. Parent company TEG made a profit in the corona years, it is unclear how well the Dutch subsidiary did.

Logistics service provider Ceva Logistics says in a response that they choose to repay in two years, instead of the five years that is possible. As a result, half of the more than 4 million euros requested subsidy has now been returned. The French parent company made a loss in the first corona year.

C&A is also still in the process of repaying the overpaid subsidy of 3.2 million euros. The chain closed several stores last year. It is unclear whether the company needs the payment arrangement due to disappointing results.

Truck and bus manufacturer Scania also says that it was unclear for a long time how much money the company was ultimately entitled to. That is now clear and the company will pay back. They do not yet know whether they will do this all at once or with a payment arrangement.

In total, more than 1 billion euros still have to be returned to the UWV. Such a payment arrangement is mainly intended to prevent companies from getting into trouble because they have to repay large sums at once. But even if you make a profit as a company: a payment arrangement is entirely in accordance with the rules.

“We have agreed that the same rules apply to everyone,” says Randy Eichhorn, project manager at the UWV. “Of course it is true that our former minister Koolmees did an appeal: deal with these kinds of regulations carefully and neatly. But it is not stated anywhere that it is not allowed, so there is little we can do about it.”

Companies generally keep to the payment agreements, says Eichhorn. “The core here is that the money that has been wrongly paid out will come back. That is the most important thing, and that is done well across the board.”

“It is good that the companies that have made generous use of it have also paid back quickly,” says Joris Knoben, professor of entrepreneurship. “For companies that don’t do that, such an extra pot of money is an advantage. For example, it gives more financial scope to make investments.”

Although the companies that do not pay back follow the rules, he thinks that there are moral questions if those companies do make a profit in the meantime. “The payment arrangement is then according to the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the law. Everyone feels that this is not the intention.”