Hi can they find out who will be in the pool beforehand?

When pooling employees for redundancy, best practice would be to consult with staff about how such pools will be defined, and if you have any input in this part of teh consultation, you will consequently know how many and more or less who will be in the proposed pools.

Che

Hi Wiggles,

Sorry to her about your son's dismissal. There are a number of issues in your post that I feel have not yet been properly highlghted.

Firstly, let me say, that you are on the back foot to a degree, the subtantive reason for teh dismissal seems plausible (taking the machine - how do we know he was not nicking it, doing a foreigner etc) and the procedural elements seem potentially fair - there was suspension on pay prior to the DH, a recorded DH, thus we have minutes and sounds like some HR who might know wht they were doing chairing the meeting.

However, you (well he) should appeal - you may be able to get this down to First and Final Written Warning if what you say about them liking him and his work ethic is true. You just to have to give them a reason to differentiate your treatment from anyone who has been dismissed before for this.

Thus first point - consistency - has this ever happened before, and if so what happened? Can you distinguish your facts from any prior similar incidents that resulted in dismissal?

Apprentice status - this is a unique category of employee and can trip up HR with it's potentially special rules. Get a copy of the apprenticeship agreement - was there also a contract of employment? - check both these documents for the contractual right(s) to (a) terminate the apprenticeship and (b) dismiss the employee under the contract of employment

Employee handbook - has the person who chaired the meeting got the contractual right to dismiss - this shoudl be in the disciplinary rules section.

If you can answer this we can take it from there.

Oh..... and also, did the dismissal letter give time limit for the appeal and have they transcribed any minutes as yet?

Che

I think it's 50 / 50, with perhaps you ahead.

How big are the company, I always love the argument, "And the Respondent, whose company turnover last year was xx million pounds, expects us to believe this was a simple oversight on their part! And with all their resources meaning a vast inequalityof bargaining power when the contracts were negotiated, why should contra proferentem not apply in its strictest sense?"

If you see where that would go ......

Shame you signed and returned the SMT!

What part of the country were you employed in?

Che

But I also note that the SMT does clearly state where there is any dispute regarding terms the offer letter shall prevail (page 2).

Hmmmmm................ food for thought....

Che, what are you thinking?

There is one small difference between your case and the previous case I dealt with on this point.

In the prior case the respondent was trying to argue that there was an implied contractual term that the employee had to have the probation period actually confirmed.

In your case there is an express contractual term in the SMT regarding this, and this was the last contractual document given so potentially they could argue that once the SMT was issued as this was the last document given it overrides any prior contractual terms.

I shall give this more thought, and come back as I am busy right now.

Did you sign the SMT or was it just sent to you?

Che

Hi Littlelotto,

Do you have some kind of record as to what your expenses actually were i.e. what could you use to show she has calculated it wrongly?

Also I am a bit confused, you say you were owed £311 from the expenses but that £466.34 was also owed in wages....? How much are you owed in total and how much of that is wages and how much underpaid expenses?

Che

Che, I would have thought 21.2 would only kick in if there was a dispute between the handbook and SMT and then, the offer letter or SMT would prevail over the Handbook. I guess I will need to get a copy of the handbook if I can, just to see what it says!

I think you should ask for a copy of the employee handbook, but I was merely pointing out how I read 21.2. You cannot be bound by clauses in the handbook if you were never given it, and in any event it would appear for your claim the relevant documents are the offer letter, the extend probation letter and the T & C's (contract of employment), and as you have pointed out the offer letter and extend probation letter say nothing about having to have the probation confirmed.

Can I ask, when this happened, and the chronology i.e. what date were you given the T & C's?

Che

Hi all,

T+C’s state offer letter prevails over T+C’s in a dispute.

No, not so sure about that, this clause (21.2) seems to say that in the event of dispute re contents of employee handbook and SMT or offer letter, either offer letter OR SMT will prevail ........ no??

But I still like your claim more than theirs. There seems to be conflict between the offer letter, the extend probation letter, and the SMT, and the common law principle of contra proferentem gives you a massive advantage in this area.

How many people do they employ?

Che

Hi Poplin,

I have been to an ET and won for someone on this exact point. The case is Przybylska v Modus Telecom Limited

I have not read your links yet, but do come back, if what you say in the OP about what your contractual documents state you could be on a winner, no length of service needed easy, easy, breach of contract claim.

Che

Hi Fitty,

I must preface this by saying that as I don't work tomorrow, I must admit that I have imbibed a tiny alcoholic drink, so the advice comes with this caveat

You must tell us how long you have worked there. But if we assume over two years then I reckon there are two issues in your post:

a) Is this a genuine redundancy (red) situation, and;

b) are you contractually entitled to said promised pay rise.

Due to cognitive limitations, I'll leave (b) to other caggers .

Red has a precise legal definition and that includes situations where an employer ceases to carry out business in the place the employee worked.

As you all worked from home, the obvious question is, "In what place did you work?"

Is this a disappearing workplace and if so, should the answer be decided on the basis of a geographic test, a factual test, or a contractual test?

Or is this disappearing work?, which could involve a different test.

Now I'm not 100% sure, but I prefer the former and I think your place of work is your home, and indeed the employer is ceasing to carry out business there.

This means that unfortunately this may be a genuine redundancy situation, which in turn would raise issues such as the possibility of unfair dismissal, a potential protective award if the 20+ employees were not consulted with prior to the dismissal etc...

I think if in the consultation you said you would be prepared to move to GiB, then it may well be unfair if they did not allow this.

There are 27 of you, you should club together and pay for a professional consultation with a solicitor, or almost certainly one of the 27 has legal expense insurance on some kind of product (insurance, credit card etc...)

Che

a

Hi cheI'm curious, do you have an authority for the 50+5 point? I've never come across this before - as far as I was aware, the 51 weeks point was fairly clear cut and I've never seen a case to the contrary.

Hi Becky, yeah I know I was shocked when first told this a while ago.

Yes authority for notice running the day after being given is from Wang v University of Keele (2011), and the second authority is a Scottish EAT case referenced in my post above Pacitti Jones (employer appellant) and O'Brien (the employee).

An oft overlooked point me thinks ...... but as far as I know correct... happy to be corrected though

Just worked it out... i was there 50 weeks and 4 days.

So sorry to hear that. I think they may have known exactly what they were doing, as there is a technical argument that actually once you hit 50 weeks and 5 days you have your one years service.

I know it sounds bizzare, but normally one day is added because, "...(1) unless (a) there is an express term in the employment contract dealing with when the notice period starts, or (b) the agreement that notice is to start immediately can be construed from the wording of the contract and the wording of the notice letter set in the factual matrix of the case..." (which is seldom the case), notice runs from the day after it is given,

and, another day is 'added' on the principle that if I start work on the 1st January and my effective date of termination is the 31st December I have one years continuous employment. (Pacitti Jones v O'Brien)

I've never seen both those arguments run together but see no reason why the proposition would not be good law. In fact your employer may well have known this as they dismissed you one day short of your ('legal') year.

Sorry

Che

Hi Lux,

If you worked there for 51 weeks, then unless you were dismissed for gross misconduct, (and this was justified) then if you were given no notice as you seem to suggest, your effective date of termination will be extended by the one week's notice that you were due:

Where the employer terminated the employee's contract without giving at least the statutory minimum notice, then the effective date of termination is extended as if that minimum notice had been given. Therefore, where an employee is dismissed summarily after 51 weeks' employment, one week's statutory minimum notice would be added when determining the effective date of termination. That employee would therefore be treated as having 52 weeks' continuous service (ie sufficient to bring an unfair dismissal claim).

Hope this helps

Che

i should have expressed myself better

Here is a precedent for the Et1:

Obviously it would need to be amended to suit.

Insert in para 8.3 or 9.1 of claim form ET1:

1. 1 The Claimant is employed by the Respondent as a [shop assistant]. His gross wages are £[insert figure] a week.
   
2. 2 In the Claimant's pay packet for the week ending [insert date] he discovered that the Respondent had made deductions from his wages for that week in the aggregate sum of £[insert figure]. The Claimant was informed that these deductions were to reimburse the Respondent for alleged cash shortages during that week
   
3. 3 [These deductions were unauthorised, and made in contravention of the ERA 1996, section 13 as the Claimant had not previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to any such deductions being made/The aggregate sum deducted was excessive in that it amounted to three-fifths of the gross wages payable to the Claimant on the pay day in question, contrary to ERA 1996, section 18(1).]
   
4. 4 It was an express term of the Claimant's contract of employment that, provided he met his sales targets for the calendar year, he would be entitled to a bonus of £500 payable in his first pay packet in the January following the end of the relevant calendar year.
   
5. 5 The Respondent failed to pay the Claimant the bonus of £500 in his January [insert year] pay packet .
   
6. 6 On or about [insert date] the Claimant became aware that the Respondent had been deducting the sum of £[insert figure] from his net wages each week. These deductions, to which the Claimant had not consented, had been made from the Claimant's wages each week since [insert date].
   
7. 
   


1. The Claimant's claim is for:
   
2. (a) a declaration that the said deductions were unauthorised;
   
3. (b) an order for [payment of the amount of the deductions set out at paragraph 2, namely, the sum of £[insert figure]/repayment of £[insert figure], being the amount by which the deductions exceeded the limit imposed by s 18(1) of the said Act];
   
4. © an order for payment of the deductions set out at paragraphs 4 and 6, being the sum of £[insert figure];
   
5. (d) an order for payment for consequential financial loss sustained, namely the sum of £[insert figure], being [bank [and interest] charges]/[give details of any consequential financial loss] resulting from the unauthorised deduction.
   

 

Che

their is no time limit to apply to an ET where wages are concerned

Squaddie has been most helpful, but this part is not correct. I think the confusion may arise because as most unlawful deductions claims are predicated on a breach of contract they can in cerian circumstaces also be brought in an 'ordinary' court wher normal rules on limitation would apply i.e. 6 years.

But let's be clear to bring a unlawful deductions claim in an ET, then "The claim must be brought within three months of the date of the last deduction. The deduction happens on the day on which the worker was paid his wages (or the date he expected to be paid if he received nothing).If there has been a series of deductions, a worker has three months from the date of the last of them. If it was not reasonably practicable to bring a claim in time, the tribunal may extend time for the claim."

But personally I wouldn't rely on getting an extension but claim in the ET within 3 months, having first done your LBA as Squaddie suggests.

Hope this helps.

CHe

Hi Paul,

You've had advice and seem to grasp the general idea. I'd bet there is no formal performance improvement plans at your company or anything like that? You may not even have a formal capability procedure, and I very much doubt the contracts you have given staff contain an express contractual right of demotion..right?

Basically assuming the employee will not voluntarily accept the demotion (unlikely especially if it comes with less pay), then you would need to have 'created' a situation where you could be confident of (being able to defend as fair) your ability to say to the employee in effect, 'accept the demotion or resign.'

To create this situation fairly, and considering this employee has 5 years service, then you will need to follow a fair cumulative warnings (verbal/written/final written) capability and / or conduct procedure. From 'clean' record to a fair dismissal this is going to probably take 3-6 months, of course depending on the employee's reaction to the warnings.

And to do either of the above will involve countless minuted meetings, appeal hearings, invite letters, outcome letters etc etc and the capability procedure would also involve setting objective targets, offering training etc etc

Thus, my advice would be to initially try an informal route. The employee has been with the company 5 years, and 2 years in the current role, thus there must be elements about this employee's work that were good and could be again, if you can repair the relationship and re-motivate the employee.

Unless you have many spare hours to spend in HR admin, if the informal route does not succed, and you really want to dismiss maybe paying an ex-gratia payment to the employee (compromise agreement etc) might be the way to go.

Che

If I'm being honest I would not include that as the tribunal will make up their own mind on this.

I really think it should go in. If we glance at a precedent of a schedule of loss from a reliable source, we can see that the ACAS uplift is included in the text of schedule:

Claimant's schedule of loss -- unfair dismissal

IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

CASE NO: [iNSERT CASE NUMBER]

BETWEEN:

[iNSERT NAME OF CLAIMANT]

(Claimant)

and

[iNSERT NAME OF RESPONDENT]

(Respondent)

CLAIMANT'S SCHEDULE OF LOSS

1. DETAILS

Net weekly basic pay:

£[insert amount]

Contractual notice period:

[insert number] [weeks] OR [months]

Statutory notice period:

[insert number] weeks]

Claimant's date of birth:

[insert date]

Period of service:

[insert date] to [insert date]

Complete years of continuous service:

[insert number] year(s)

Age at effective date of termination:

[insert number] years

Gross weekly pay:

£[insert amount]

2. BASIC AWARD

[RELEVANT MULTIPLIER] X [NUMBER OF COMPLETE YEARS' SERVICE] X £[WEEK'S PAY (subject to statutory maximum)]:

Basic award: £ [insert amount]

Less

Amount received as statutory redundancy pay:

£ [insert amount]

Total basic award:

£ [insert amount]

3. COMPENSATORY AWARD

Loss to date of tribunal hearing

3.1 Loss of basic salary to date of tribunal ([insert number of weeks from effective date of termination] x £[insert net weekly basic pay]):

£[insert amount]

3.2 Loss of statutory rights:

£[300]

3.3 Loss of [bonus/commission] to date of tribunal:

£[insert amount]

3.4 Loss of pension benefit to date of tribunal [specify details]:

£[insert amount]

3.5 Loss of [insert details of other benefits] to date of tribunal:

£[insert amount]

3.6 Expenses incurred to date of tribunal: [specify details ]

£[insert amount]

3.7 [Loss of long notice period:]

£[insert amount -- no more than two weeks' net pay]

Losses to date of tribunal (past loss):

£[insert amount]

Less

3.8 Ex gratia payment:

£[insert amount]

3.9 Sums obtained through mitigation to date of tribunal: [set out relevant details of each job that employee has had, eg: two weeks' temporary shop work [insert dates] at £200 net per week: £400, three weeks' part-time work at estate agency [insert dates] at £50 net per week: £150 etc]

£[insert total amount earned by way of mitigation to date of tribunal]

Total past loss:

£[insert amount]

Future loss

3.10 Future loss of earnings ([insert period] x £[insert net weekly basic pay]):

£[insert amount]

3.11 Future loss of pension: [insert details, ie number of weeks at £x per week]

£[insert amount]

3.12 Future loss of [insert details of other benefits]:[insert details, ie number of weeks at £x per week]

£[insert amount]

3.13 Future expenses: [insert details]

£[insert amount]

Future losses:

£[insert amount]

Less

3.14 Future mitigation: [insert details and net pay of any new job. If work is only temporary, give details, including end date]

£[insert amount/details]

Total future loss:

£[insert amount]

Total loss and adjustments

3.15 [uplift in compensatory award due to Respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with Acas Code [insert percentage up to 25]% x [Total past loss] + [Total future loss]]:

Total compensatory award after adjustment for uplift: £[insert amount]

3.16 [Add award for failure to provide written statement of particulars of employment (either two or four weeks' pay:]

£[insert amount]

Less

3.17 [Deduction for any enhanced redundancy payment in excess of the basic award:]

£[insert amount]

COMPENSATORY AWARD GRAND TOTAL:

£[insert amount]

3.18 Grossing up for effect of taxation: [insert details]

[3.19 Statutory cap:]

[£[insert statutory maximum amount]]

Of course the above schedule is merely a standard precedent and thus some of the above heads of claim may not apply; and conversley the OP could have additional heads of claim (not least the discrim element) that are not listed above.

And, I think the OP has not applied the uplift in their schedule correctly. I note in the OP's schedule point 3 seems to be a 'future loss', and the precedent suggests the uplift does not apply to this head .......without looking into this more right now, that is how I read the above.....

Che

Why not put the failiure to follow ACAS guidelines uplift at 25% if it is a 'serious' failure to follow?

The employer deducts the £x amount to cover personal mileage. The fuel card is provided to cover both business and personal mileage and the £x amount is a way of saying that the company will charge you this £x amount in lieu of your private mileage. This £x amount is the same for all employees, hence why some people have benefited from the change and others have lost out - although I think more have lost out.

Ahh, ok I get it. What a weird clause. I'm surprised that some employee's didn't take courier jobs at the weekend as it appears that whatever their personal mileage and petrol spend each month the amount deducted (£x) always remained the same.

Bizarre.

As regards the change, and their need to tell you within on month they can just notify you in writing of this as the section 1 statement that entitles you to a written 'contract' need not all be in one document. Of course this doesn't mean the change is permissible.

I think you may be fighting an uphill battle here, as the express contractual term to which you refer is not really being changed that much? I mean (£x) must have come from somewhere and presumably at that time did represent an actual amount that you would have used in petrol in one month.

Any Union, and how many affected by the change?

Che

- Can this be contrued as Breach of Contract by the Employer and should this route be pursued - albeit the implications of termination of current contract etc?

Hi Grumpy,

Now I'll leave the tax issues to other CAGGERS but as regards your potential claims as regards this proposed unilateral contractual variation, and as to whether this is a breach of contract, I wanted to add a few thoughts.

You ask, is this a breach of contract. Well on the facts as you present them, this could be the case. This is because, an employer should not 'all of a sudden ask employees to sign a new contract of employment and accept new terms and conditions'

An employment contract, is just like any other contract. It should, generally speaking, not be changed unilaterally. Thus if one side, the employer, changes a fundamental term of the contract (e.g. one that affects pay or BIK), then this should only be done by mutual agreement with the other contracting party – the employee

Good practice is that the employee should have been consulted re the proposed changes.

Was there any consultation here?

Even if not, lack of consultation alone is not a free-standing head of claim. Consultation could vary with size of workforce, and the length of service of each employee affected, and of course the reason for the change.

If a change is imposed,the employee has 4 options, to continue to work and say nothing, continue to work, but make it clear this was under protest, continue to work and yet claim that you have been dismissed from your old contract or resign and claim constructive dismissal.

The difference here is that to be successful in most of the above in any meaningful way you will need to show that this is not just a breach of contract but a FUNDAMENTAL or repudiatory breach of contract.

Furthermore, you say the term in the contract states, “A car is provided for your use on business for the employer. A fuel card is issued to enable you to meet petrol costs. A monthly deduction from your pay of£x will be made to cover personal mileage.”

Has the employer been deducting sums for 'personal mileage' in reality? When they said above, “...to meet petrol costs...”, did that refer to just petrol costs relating to business mileage or all your petrol costs in one month?

Che

Do i need to make significant changes to the POC if it is apprenticeship?

I appreciate the urgency, and of course don't miss your deadline for filing at the ET, but I wonder if you could get some professional help. I know you said you tried the law centres, what about Community Legal Advice? (just google it).

I think it would be imprudent to rush in to an employment claim being unsure on something so fundamental as your exact employment status.

I have never drafted a claim for a dismissed apprentice so do not claim to know any definitively right answers to the above.

What I do know is that exact employment status will always turn on the precise facts of the particular case, a level of detail that you can never get on an open forum.

I also know, from the above, that IF you were an apprentice in the 'legal sense' (and I'm not sure if you are or are not from the information), then (assuming you were unfairly dismissed) such status carries with it certain unique claims that should, I think be explained more clearly and / or explicitly claimed in the POC.

Try CLA as it is assessment on the phone and if eligible, 2 hours of advice (not representation), on an empoyment matter; i.e. they could help with the POC if you are eligible.

That said, your POC is still great, but, I think, could be improved.

Che

Loss of statutory rights will be part of /included in the schedule of loss...will it not??

Agreed madari, I suppose this particular one is implicit in the claim and will be fine to pop in the schedule of loss.

But I just used to get a bit paranoid when drafting and try to 'cover all the bases'.

Thanks elche, what do you mean by "creates a series of unique situations that can effect your entitlement to pay" and "could affect the right things to write in the POC".

 

I remember reading that if apprentices are dismissed they can claim future earnings? But i don't know what the legal test is for apprentice?

As for information about this, I apologize as I know this is a lot of text , but it comes from, in my opinion, the best source of employment law guidance.

A contract of apprenticeship differs from a contract of employment. The essential feature of an apprenticeship is that the apprentice contracts to be taught a trade or calling (R v Crediton Inhabitants (1831) 2 B & Ad 493; Horan v Hayhoe [1904] 1 KB 288; Wiltshire Police Authority v Wynn [1980] ICR 649, [1981] QB 95, CA). Although the apprentice contracts to serve his master, technically the relationship is not one of master and servant (Horan v Hayhoe).

[92]

Apprenticeship has declined in importance over the years, and the law of apprenticeship has become a recondite subject. Some of its quaint features are explained by its history. Before the industrial revolution, apprentices used to live in the master's premises. The master was in loco parentis and assumed the duty to maintain the apprentice, providing free board and lodging, medicine and medical care. By the same token, there was no implied right to wages in the apprentice. The master had a right reasonably to chastise his apprentice; but an attempt to exercise that right today would invite an action for assault (R v Josephson (1914) 110 LT 512).

[93]

Features which are still of practical importance include the limited right of dismissal. Misconduct which would justify the summary dismissal of a servant at common law does not justify the dismissal of an apprentice, though it seems that an apprentice may be dismissed if his conduct is so bad that it is impossible to teach him the trade (Newell v Gillingham Corpn [1941] 1 All ER 552; Learoyd v Brook [1891] 1 QB 431). If an apprentice is wrongfully dismissed he may have a claim for enhanced damages by reason of the loss of his prospects as a tradesman on completion of his apprenticeship (Dunk v George Waller & Son Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 630, [1970] 2 QB 163, CA). See also Wallace v CA Roofing Services Ltd [1996] IRLR 435, QBD. The case concerned an apprentice sheet metal worker who was dismissed for reason of redundancy after 19 months and claimed damages for breach of contract, arguing that the contract was one of apprenticeship and therefore not subject to a redundancy dismissal. This was held to be the case and the matter was remitted for damages to be assessed, presumably on the basis that the contract should have been one for four years.

[93.01]

However, the position of a 'modern apprenticeship' has caused problems. It differs from a traditional apprenticeship in that it involves three parties, the individual, the employer and the training organisation; the basic obligation on the employer is not to train, but to allow access to training by the organisation. In Whitely v Marton Electrical Ltd [2003] IRLR 197 the EAT under Recorder Underhill held that such an arrangement was at least analogous to a traditional apprenticeship (the key point being that it was therefore not terminable by ordinary notice, and so an early termination during its anticipated currency could sound in damages for breach of contract). Shortly afterwards, however, another EAT under Wall J held to the contrary in Thorpe v Dul [2003] ICR 1556, [2003] All ER (D) 14 (Jul) and indeed went further and held that it was neither a contract of apprenticeship nor a contract of employment. The matter was reconsidered by the Court of Appeal in Flett v Matheson [2006] EWCA Civ 53, [2006] IRLR 277. Agreeing with Whitley, they held that a modern apprenticeship does satisfy the statutory definition of a 'contract of apprenticeship'; given that the employer pays the individual and allows him or her time off for study, it is not fatal to the definition that the academic component is actually provided by a third party. As in Whitley, the practical effect was that the individual could not be dismissed merely on notice during the currency of the apprenticeship. In Chassis Cab Specialists Ltd v Lee UKEAT/0268/10, [2011] All ER (D) 178 (Feb), EAT Underhill P cited this summary of the law with approval and criticised a tribunal for not considering and applying it, but instead deciding on apprenticeship status (or lack of it) merely as a matter of impression and common sense.

[94]

A traditional contract of apprenticeship was usually made by deed, though strictly the only formalities are that it is signed and in writing (Kirkby v Taylor [1910] 1 KB 529; McDonald v John Twiname Ltd [1953] 2 QB 304, [1953] 2 All ER 589, CA). However, an oral contract of apprenticeship is valid in law but unenforceable unless and until acted upon (Edmonds v Lawson [2000] IRLR 391, [2000] ICR, 567, CA). Apprentices may be minors (infants), in which case the contract will be subject to the normal rules that a minor is not bound by a contract unless it is for his benefit, and that he may repudiate his contract upon attaining his majority (see para [346] below). For that reason it is not uncommon to join his parent or guardian as party to the contract to guarantee his performance of it.

Still awake ....?

Che

The pay is well below minimum wage, so i assume its classed as an apprentaship in that respect. Monthly pay was around £500.

This is why I wonder if you were in fact an 'apprentice' which in employment law is a sui generis category of worker, which as a consequence creates a series of unique situations that can effect your entitlement to pay (as in you got less than NMW), and also could affect the right things to write in the POC.

What is ER's??

I get lazy..... but mean ER employer, and EE employee

I didnt ask for a written statement of dismissal, just recieved the letter after the meeting.

Ok. No need to include a claim for failure to provide this then, but there are definitely additional heads of claim that I would put in my POC if it were me; for example the loss of statutory rights reflects that in a new job you will have to build up 2 years service b4 being able to bring a an unfair dismissal claim.

I'm well into a bottle of rioja but I still think there are additions that you should consider to your POC.

Che

I actually didn't want to intervene. The POC is very well drafted for a lay person. You don't want to make it too "perfect" as the Judge may think you're more qualified than you are and expect too much of you, so it's a good balance as it is. It's articulate and puts the points across well, without the confusing legalese.

Yeah agreed, but do you not think there could be additional heads of claim missing. When I worked for claimants I would never let it go without checking these additional potential claims.

For example what about a claim for loss of statutory rights? Was that not routinely awarded at about £200-£350?

I agree that litigants in person are treated nice by Et's and they will bend the rules as far as they can as regards what's pleaded in the POC as regards amendments to what is pleaded.

But if you do not plead a potential head completely would they allow it subsequently.... ????

My main point I suppose is that a claimant (be they LIP or represented) should never miss out a completely separate head of claim as they may not get this if pleaded later.

Che