Thanks for replying. I have retained all of my old pay slips so can calculate the total travel paid over the period (and can apply the various percentages in terms of tax/NICs). However the problem is with calculating ordinary commute as opposed to business mileage. I was reimbursed for all fuel used (ordinary and business miles). I've been informed by HMRC that there are no refunds due for my ordinary commute but can get refunds for my business mileage. My ex employer is taking an 'average' based on the few (about 10) travel expense forms they have. I'm saying this is unrealistic as they haven't accounted for me having much larger business mileage for several years which they haven't got the travel expense forms for. I am of the understanding that they should have retained records (I think for 25 years) as I was working with children? HMRC have stated that they will issue refunds for the entire period but my ex employer and me have to agree on the amounts. At present I can't agree with my ex employer's calculations as I feel they are way off the mark.

Thanks for the replies. HMRC have accepted that I can claim the refunds from 2003 as, in their words, they failed to chase this matter up. I have been in contact with HMRC and they have told me that my ex-employer needs to send the information in to them. My problem is that my ex-employer's calculations are clearly incorrect - they are approximately £1700 off the mark! My ex-employer hasn't retained records and are 'estimating' refunds based on a hand full of travel documents which don't reflect (in my opinion) the true amounts involved. As per original post I thought they had to retain full records pertaining to Childrens Services (registers etc) for many years. If I can get copies of these documents I can then make more accurate calculations regarding travel undertaken.

In a nutshell I have an ongoing dispute with my ex employer going back 11 years! This employer, Local Authority, added my petrol reimbursements to my salary hence I paid PAYE, NICs and Student Loan repayments on an inflated amount. For example, one year my salary was £20,000, my petrol reimbursements were £4,000 - I paid PAYE, NICs and Student Loan repayments on £24,000 not £20,000. They have since admitted that they should have differentiated between 'ordinary' commute and 'business' commute. The travel claim forms did not allow for the differentiation. I do not have records of my travel during this period (2003 - 2011). They have not retained records either. I have received (today) their guesstimates but can instantly see they are way off the mark. Basically, I'm being told 'tough' these are our estimates so that's that! I worked with children during this employment (teaching). I have been told that all records pertaining to children should be retained by LAs for 25 years. Is this correct? If so, surely they should have kept records of the children I taught over this period hence I could give a more accurate record of my travel. Any references to LA responsibilities in this case would be gratefully received. It's been a long haul but determined to get it sorted. As an addition, because of the miscalculations this LA would have paid too much, by default, in the way of employer's NICs - surely they should be attempting to reclaim this back (possibly several hundreds of employees were affected - possibly £1000's involved) from HMRC on behalf of the local Council tax payers? They don't seem at all interested in doing so at present! Btw, my MP is on the case too.

I agree, I don't want to make a fuss - just want to hear that this arrangement is correct from the horses mouth (so to speak). Also have no intention of involving unions despite advice given here.

Strange response! I never suggested that the junior member of staff (who works in a totally unrelated department) in question was 'thick', just that my manager should have perhaps checked this out with HR first. Why would I want to involve unions when I am able to contact HR directly myself, 'again'?

Hi SL - I can see that I've still got the full AL for continuous service, and that my present employer (well immediate manager) is merely telling me when I've got to take 2 of these days. Not unusual - I've previously worked for a company where they shut down for 2 weeks and all employees had to take these 2 weeks as AL. However, it's still worth me putting the question to HR and seeing what they come up with. No asky - no getty! I'm a little miffed that my manager took the word of a junior member of staff rather than ask a little 'higher' up for an answer. I don't believe union reps have agreed to anything - huge problems with every employee being 'sacked' a couple of years ago (made all the headlines!).

Ha, ha - wouldn't expect my colleagues (lovely as they are) to give up their 'perks' on my account. Also LGE website says that all LGs ARE the same employer. Just as an addition, talked to senior HR (different authority) today. They stated that in their view this situation is 'frought' with problems. As my contract clearly states that I am entitled to an 'extra' 5 days due to continuous service, in effect I am only getting 3 extra days compared to some others. Will hash it out tomorrow.

Atlas01 - could well be. Looking at your signature, 'Praemonitus praemunitus' is what I had in mind ;-)

Thanks both (SL and orfoster) for your replies. Not subject to TUPE btw. What I'm struggling with getting my head around is that my understanding is that Local Authorities are identified as 'one and the same employer' hence the 'carry on' with regards to continuous service. Therefore would I not be considered an employee on the cut off date in 2011 albeit with a different authority? What I'm trying to say is that I'm considered an employee with continuous service for AL purposes but it seems like I'm not considered an employee with continuous service for Christmas leave entitlements. I hope I'm making sense! I intend to contact HR on Monday to clarify the position. Unfortunately nobody in my office has similar circumstances and my direct manager took advice from a junior member of staff. As an addition, could I request the 2 days as unpaid leave rather than take it out of my entitlement? The reason being is that I have already planned my remaining leave for this year and don't want to be left with being 2 days short IYSWIM?

I have worked for Local Government since 2003. Last year I changed from one authority to another and continuous service has been recognised in respect of an extra 5 days paid annual leave. However, we've just been told that employees who started work with the authority after 2011 (I started with them in 2012) will have to use 2 days of their annual leave over the Christmas period, those who were in post prior to 2011 will be 'given' these 2 days. My manager has suggested that I will have to use the 2 days as I started work with them after the cut off date. But...my thoughts are that as I've got extra annual leave due to continuous service, was I not already 'in post' from 2003? Any thoughts gratefully received (together with any evidence etc if possible).

Thank you for your reply Sidewinder - you summed up both cases much clearer than I could have! In my case I was employed on an 'as and when required' contract many years ago. In reality I worked every day, every week, every month, for 10 years, so put before the ET that an 'as required' contract did not reflect the true reality of the relationship between the employer and myself. To my mind this can be likened to the Autoclenz case as their contracts said they were self-employed but all other indications suggested they were employees (my contract stated 'as and when' but all other indications suggested that a regular working pattern had been established for many years). However, wouldn't the ETJ have had to, in the case of Autoclenz, look at the original contract, look at the evidence that argued that these employees were not self-employed and then make a decision on these points. Surely such a decision is based on the ETJ making interpretations about contractual terms which is at odds with the Southern Cross ruling? The ETJ when giving his Judgment said that, in effect, his hands were tied due to the Southern Cross case. I understand that as I did have a contract I was asking the Judge to decide if the terms and conditions on my contract were correct when compared to other employees of the Respondent (hence asking him to construe contractual terms) but isn't this what the 'self-employed' Autoclenz workers were asking also? The ETJ also told the Respondent off and told them to sort matters out as he was concerned that he 'would be seeing both parties in ET again in the near future'. I am of course trying to second guess what he meant by this? Any additional thoughts on the matter?

Can anybody explain what seems a contradiction to me?My understanding is that an ET Judge is prevented from interpreting (construing) the contractual terms of an employment contract (Southern Cross Healthcare v Perkins 2011 IRLR 247). However, Autoclenz v Belcher 2011 UKSC 41 decided that the ET was able to disregard terms included in the written contractual agreement which, in my view, is an interpretation.In my case Southern Cross was argued by the Respondent. They maintained my claim was outside the jurisdiction of the ET. I argued that the Autoclenz case suggested the ET could decide the reality of the working relationship rather than what was included in the original statement of particulars.Any thoughts as to why the ET Judge said that this case was outside his jurisdiction, and why he didn't/couldn't apply the more recent Autoclenz ruling?