But that's the point here, we have always previously been paid from home! - Clock in at home, finish at base. So in terms of the new regulations, the company was already complying with the ruling. They seem to be using this ruling to now move the goalposts.

Yes, I have asked for an up to date copy of my contract from HR. The copy I have only mentions ad hoc overtime and is from when I first started with the company. However I am now on an out of hours standby rota of 1 in 8 and also a contractual weekend overtime rota of 1 in 8 with 8 hours guaranteed on a Saturday at time and a half, and 8 hours on a Sunday at double time. This has been the case for about 10 years. I started on these rotas in 2000 when it was 1 in 6 which then went to 1 in 7 a few years later, and finally to 1 in 8. I was compensated for these previous changes. My contract also states a 37 hour working week Monday to Friday, although the newer lads have contracts which state 37 hours Monday to Sunday. However we all work to the same Monday to Friday pattern with all work on weekends paid as overtime. There are only 5 of us left in our department on the old style contracts out of 17. Like I said previous, only 2 weeks notice given and this was verbally not written. What is annoying is that we haven't been given any extra work because of this, so we get back to the office in the same time, it just means that we have to hang around for an extra half hour before clocking off, so it seems pointless as the company aren't saving any money.

Thanks for all your replys. Been trying to find out more info before coming back. I was on holiday when the initial announcement was made to the team, so been getting some clearer info. In response to the questions: No, I'm not personally in a union, but some of the team are. Apparently, the union has had wind of this for a while and the company has refused to negotiate on the matter. The union is asking its members to rebel and keep working as before, and if wages are deducted, then claim for unlawful deduction of earnings. They reckon it is breach of contract! We were told 2 weeks before it kicked in, so mid September with it starting on 1st October. Only a briefing, no official document detailing the change, although there was a general info and guidance page created on our internal intranet. No amendments to any contracts have been issued to anyone. The custom and practice is an interesting one, and has been mentioned around the office. Individuals have previously used this argument successfully when the company has tried to alter their overtime. For the record I have been working to the old arrangements for 20 years, however I am one of the longest serving members of the team. Some of the lads have only been here for a couple of years. I personally live 45 miles away from base, which takes between 1 hour and 1 hour 15 minutes to travel depending on traffic. Some live very close (a few miles) and the furthest away lives about 60 miles away. We are all scattered around our supply area and generally work the rounds closest to our homes. We need to take the vans home because we are all required to participate in out of hours standby rotas, so I can't see the company making us leave the vans at base, as is wouldn't be feasible. Travel time doesn't take us under the minimum wage, as we all earn 25 - 30K. After doing some digging it seems some other departments had the chance to be bought out of their old agreements if they accepted the new time rules with compensation being paid, however we were not given that opportunity and it has been forced on us with no compensation. I work for a large utility company with many different departments and 3,000 employees, so communication between different areas often doesn't get through. The union said to the company that under no circumstances should they use this ruling to justify these changes, however some managers chose to ignore this and I think were hoping that the lack of knowledge of the staff on such matters would deter us from challenging it. However, apparently the company could pay us for travel if they wanted to, but decided not to! We are considering putting in a collective grievance to see where that takes us. I personally feel like continuing to record my times as normal and see what action they take. If they are in breach of contract they would be foolish indeed to try and bring any disciplinary action against me. As long as I complete my 37 hours, as far as I am concerned then they should pay me my full salary. MP.

Good evening all, I'm after some advice regarding changes my employer has made to my working day. Following the ruling in 2015 regarding travel to work time for mobile workers being counted as "working time", my employer has brought in changes at work from the beginning of this month. I work in the utilities industry, and my job involves me travelling around from site to site carrying out my duties. These sites include both company assets and customer properties. At the end of the working day, it is required that I return to my base location. Up until now, my working day starts at home and finishes when I clock out at base. We have always been paid from when we leave home until when we clock out at base. Travel home time has always been unpaid and our own time. From 1st October my company has now changed this to the following: We now clock in as normal at home, yet we now only start getting paid from when we reach our 1st job or after half an hours travel, which ever is the shorter. We then clock in again to start our "paid time". We then continue as before and clock out at base and then travel home in our own time as before. For the majority of my colleagues, their first job is over 30 minutes away from home, meaning that we are now having to do an extra 30 minutes a day for the same pay. This has in effect increased our working week by up to 2.5 hours. Having checked my contract, it states that I work a 37 hour week Monday to Friday, however after this change I will now have to do 39.5 hours a week for the same pay. My contract also states that any overtime is on an "ad hoc" basis only. The company have stated that the change to the EU law has brought in this change and that it is therefore not negotiable because it is now the law! Having trawled the internet, I cannot find anything which says that this ruling governs pay as this should be a matter for UK courts, not EU. Do I have any grounds to challenge this? Thanks in advance. MP.

Any updates on this matter??? In the same boat as the others - Been paying 1st Plus since 2005!

I agree! Pity it took over 3 and a half years waiting at the FOS to get it finally sorted! Thank you for your assistance ims21. MP.

Right, well that increases it higher then: Totals are now: Monthly payments of ppi £7925 8% Simple interest £6576 Total £14,501 If I add up altogether the payments that i've received from both loans and also include the extra that they are now offering, then once the deductions are made for income tax which they automatically take off, there is about a £120 difference. So it looks like this extra offer is fair! MP.

Then it seems too low! - Or do I need to also included the percentage of the amount I paid to settle loan 2 which was ppi? (Minus the early settlement rebate) MP.

My scanner keeps making my laptop crash so cant upload anything! (I really need a new laptop :/) I got full statements of account for both loans through my SAR. Loan 1 definitely does not show any refund being applied to the account. Loan 2 shows a refund of £311 being applied. Have worked out that 17.12% of loan 1 was made up of ppi, and that when loan 1 was settled £1,749 of ppi was rolled over into loan 2. % of loan 1 ppi in loan 2 payments = 7.07% 17.49% of loan 2 payments were ppi. Have put all loan 1 payments, loan 1 roll over payments into loan 2, and all loan 2 payments into spreadsheet. Totals are: Monthly payment of ppi £5,955 8% simple interest £5,164 Total £11,119 Is there any other interest that needs to be added to this total? MP.

I've done some calculations using the formula, but i've got a couple of questions. I did not get any ppi rebate from loan 1 when I refinanced with loan 2, so do I included the amount rolled over on the spread sheet? I've followed the instuctions and added each payment made for loan 1, then all payments for loan 2 including the extra payments for the rolled over loan 1. Is this the final total or is there any other interest to add onto the total? MP.

Yes, I have all the repayment dates to hand. MP.

Thank you for your quick reply ims21. I've already looked through your tutorial, but i'm still having trouble working things out. The FOS are currently investigating loan 1 only. I accepted Lloyds offer for loan 2 back in 2009 without even questioning their figures. (Before I knew about CAG!) Would the FOS be willing to look at it again after so long? Have I shot myself in the foot by reclaiming each one separately, as the redress seems different. That is what seems to be confusing me. Can I now claim both together? MP.

Hi all, I would be grateful of some advice on the following situation. Over the previous few years I have been claiming back PPI on 2 loans from Lloyds Bank taken out in Feb 2001 (£10,000) and Feb 2002 (£20,400), the second of which was a refinancing loan which replaced the first, and which was settled in Oct 2005. I previously started a reclaim on the second loan in 2009 and this was upheld by the FOS, resulting in a refund of £7947. I did not challenge this figure as at the time I did not believe that it may be inaccurate, so I signed the FOS acceptance and payment was eventually made. This was broken down as: Refund of ppi installments £3909 Difference in settlement figures £1506 Interest @ 8% £2332 Compensation £200 Once this had been settled, I started a reclaim on the initial loan. Again, Lloyds dragged their heels, initially rejecting the claim and allowing this to drag on for several month. Fast forward to November 2010, when they finally caved in and agreed to refund me. However, on looking at the settlement figures, I was concerned that they were incorrect, so asked for a full breakdown of the calculations. They refused, so I referred it to the Ombudsman for them to check over. Move forward to the present time, and the FOS are now finally looking at it. When Lloyds agreed to a refund on loan 1, they said they would refund all premiums paid plus the difference between the actual settlement figure, and what it would have been if the ppi hadn't been taken out. This is what I signed for on the settlement form, and what they had also done on the previously reclaimed loan. However, what I received was a refund of all premiums paid, plus excess balance interest from the refinanced loan (loan 2). There was no mention of the payment for the difference between the actual settlement and no ppi settlement. Therefore it seems that Lloyds never realised that the loan had been refinanced when they offered their initial settlement, and because of this, their offer changed. There offer was: Refund of premiums £378 + £86 interest + £346 8% stat interest = £810 Excess balance interest £2,184 inc stat interest Total £2994 This is now what is with the FOS. I have now received an offer from Lloyds with an additional payment of £2127, but it again refers to the refinancing loan and not the original loan, although the reference does relate to the original loan. Again, it is for excess balance interest and is made because there was an error in their original calculation. CONFUSED:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x I have all the figures to hand for all refunds paid so far for both loans, so I would be very grateful if someone could see whether everything tallys or if they are playing games with me. Loan 1 £10,000 taken out in Feb 2001 over 60 month with additional ppi of £2066. Payments ran for 11 month with total ppi payments of £378 over that time. The closing balance of the loan was £10,220 which was transferred to the new loan. No ppi rebate was given!!! This was refinanced in Feb 2002 with loan 2 for £20,400 with additional ppi of £4327. Payments on this loan ran for 43 month with total ppi payments of £3,909 until the loan was settled in full in 2005. A ppi rebate of £311 was applied to the account and I paid £8,021 to settle. What I would like to know is are the refunds accurate and should I accept their new offer. I think the confusion has arisen because I reclaimed each loan separately and not as one big roll over loan, and the FOS redress seems difference for rollover loans compared to single loans. Sorry for the long post, but i'd be grateful if someone could look at the figures as this is confusing me no end. Many Thanks, MP.

Hi all, Sorry not been on here for a while, but I thought it was time to post an update. In the end, after much pressure from my better half, I decided to cash the cheques sent by Lloyds as partial settlement only. They did not send me any forms to accept the settlement, so I thought by doing this I wasn't closing the file altogether. I then sent Lloyds a detailed letter of complaint to their head office including a full schedule of charges asking for the difference between the two amounts. Also in the letter were details of the defaults as described in post 92. Heard back from Lloyds last week saying that their refund was correct and in line with FOS guidelines, and that this was their final decision and to take to FOS if not happy. Also said the matter of the defaults and sale of debt to DCA was being passed to their Birmingham customer care centre and that they would be in touch shortly. About to send the LBA, but dont know how to play it. All I have asked for is the compound interest up to the day they stopped charging interest in 2008. Their payments to date total approx 75% of this amount, so I am only short by about a grand. however if they refuse to back down and this ends up in Court, then I could claim interest in restitution up to today's date. This would be significantly higher than what I am asking for now. Am I still entitled to claim this extra in Court even though I am not asking for this amount now, or would I be only able to claim the amounts details in my SOC? As Lloyds have already admitted mis-selling by refunding me, surely if I file a claim for restitution, they could not submit a defence because the whole claim is based around their mis-selling of the ppi in the first place? With this in mind, would I not win by default? I've finally got a new scanner, so will post up their breakdown of the figures when I figure out how to do it! MP.

Are there any previous cases similar to this where the account has previously defaulted? I thought that you always got the 8% stat?

My old scanner got chucked when I updated my computer, but i'll see if i can do it at work or borrow one. Can you comment on the fact that they haven't paid any stat 8% interest? The refund only consists of refund of premiums plus their alleged APR attributed interest plus simple credit balance interest. Why have they got zero for interest on difference from account closure date to refund date? MP.

Update, Right, Lloyds have finally got back to me and have increased their offer. They have also provided a full breakdown of the account from when it was opened in May 1999 to when it was closed in December 2008. This includes figures with the ppi included, and a reconstructed version with the ppi element removed. Their revised figures are as follows: (I've rounded them up or down) Actual closing balance £6,600 Reconstructed closing balance £3,700 Difference between closing balances £2,900 PPI Premium Paid £1,800 APR interest attributed to PPI £1,100 Total premiums plus interest £2,900 Simple interest on difference from account closed to refund date £0.00 Simple interest on credit balances £210 Simple interest on difference between payments £0.00 Other indirect losses £0.00 Tax payable to HMRC £-42 Total refund £3,120 There is no mention of any statutory interest being paid????? Their figures seem all over the place, and the columns look like they may have got mixed up in places! However, opening and closing balances seem to tally, as do the monthly ppi premiums. The interest rate applied at any though is highly erratic, and changes from month to month. This definitely does not tally with what is on my statements! Some are higher than the statement, and some are lower. There are only very few months when they are constant. They insist that this is their final offer and state that it is in line with FOS guidelines. Very confused at all this...........

As an aside to the ppi: Having just been looking through my credit report with Experian, i've noticed that this account is listed twice with Lloyds and DCA. The balances are the same, but the default dates are about 3 days out. Now I know that you can only be defaulted once, so an error has already occured, but is there any way I can attempt to get the defaults removed completely as the account is made up of a now confirmed PPI mis-selliing? I reason I ask is because we are looking at moving house next year and therefore require a new mortgage. My defaulted debts all happened in October 2007 and have now started to drop off my credit file. However, I thought that this account would be gone early in the new year, but the default dates are showing as December 2008, meaning that they wont drop off for another 13 month. It seems that Lloyds waited over a year after my DMP started to register the account as defaulted. The months leading up to the default are shown only as "in arrangement". I dont understand this as I only stopped paying the account in January 2009 when I put the account in dispute when they couldn't provide a valid cca and when they first refused my ppi reclaim. I never rectified the original default letter sent in October 2007, so surely the default should start from that date, as was the case with the other debts. Any advice? MP.

Just a quick update: Have contacted Lloyds again challenging their refund and asking for full breakdown of figures. Have received a reply saying that they will be in touch within 10 days. MP.

Thanks again dx, So I am I right in thinking that they should have paid me £5,500 now rather than the £1,250 they actually paid - as per post 85? If I take it to court then I claim up upwards of £10,000, but I cannot also claim s69 interest as well on top of this? Will get back to them and ask them to provide a breakdown of their figures. I'm hazarding a guess that they have only gone back 6 years, and not all the back to 1999. Will post when I hear back from them. MP.

Would that be stat interest on the balance at default including the compound interest, or just stat interest on the ppi premiums? Either way they have short changed me as they have only paid £1,250 before the extra for distress etc. If I run the CISHEET up to todays date, then it totals just over £10,000 in payments and contractual interest alone. Would s69 interest be added onto that figure too? If so, then there's a massive difference between the 2 options. I'm tempted to go down the court route as they have already admitted liability by agreeing that the ppi was mis-sold? Surely they would be foolish to defend knowing that??? Does the £10,000 small claims limit include the interest, or is only based on the principle amount of the premiums? MP.

Right, here goes: I've used an apr of 18.9% and so far only calculated all the statements I have from Jan 2000 onwards. The total inc compound interest is just under £4,000 Then putting the £4000 into the other spreadsheet gives a grand total of just over £5,500 with stat interest on top. Does this sound right? Should they be paying this now, or would this only be payable if I went to court?

Thanks dx. The apr ranged from 16.4% to 21.4%. So do I take the average of that range which would be 18.9%, or do I need to add up each individual apr and divide the total by the number of months? In their offer letter they said that they calculated up to the date the account was charged off, but they actually stopped interest well before that. Also what about when the account was in credit as no interest was charged then also? MP.

A couple of questions: Do I need to complete a separate claim form for each time the apr changed? Also, what dates do I put in for claim from and claim to? IMS said that I could only claim upto the default date?? Cheers, MP.

Many thanks dx