I am a carer for my elderly uncle who put a lasting Power of Attorney in place when he had a spell of ill health. There have not been any problems with the health side of the POA but when I went to his bank to register the Financial POA they said that once I registered it with them he would be denied all access to his accounts and I would resume all responsibility. I naively thought that the POA could be attached to his account ready to act on his behalf as and when needed. I walked away from the bank at that time as I didn't want to deprive my uncle access to the money in his current account, he regularly walks to the bank to cash a cheque which in my mind keeps him fit and active. My uncle is now in hospital and his mental capacity has declined further. Is there a way I can register the POA with the bank so I can take care of his financial matters and continue to do so without depriving him of the ability to cash a cheque when he returns home? Alternatively can I register the lasting POA with the bank and then with the POA in place, instruct them to keep him as a signatory on his current account?

Emmzzi is spot on..... they usually pay the statutory minimum. As charities are reliant on donations or grants and their accounts are visible to everyone this means they are open to scrutiny and not only from the Charity Commission. The easiest way to minimize any criticism on their allocation of finance is to pay the minimum. In my experience they are happier to rely on unpaid volunteers.

Thank you Steampowered. We sat and listened to the Judgement and yes the judge did make reverence to a possibility of funds being obtained by deception, but he could only make a judgement call on the fact's in front of him. In my opinion, the previous Treasurer felt she could come into the tribunal, admit they were all her clerical errors while shrugging her shoulders believing she was 'untouchable' as she helped her friend who was the claimant. This may be true in the ET but she seems to have forgotten the Trustees Act still applies to her. With regard to the money given by our Local Authority, their contract makes it very clear what the money is to be used for, clearly they have breached that so ultimately they may have to pay it back. In my opinion which I have formed from the facts in front of me, they have 'milked' this charity over a long period of time in several different ways, if they had just walked away then I guess no one would ever have known. They just had to come back for a 'final bite of the cherry' with the employment tribunal. This is such a great forum and the Cagers advise and thoughts have been invaluable, I couldn't have got this far without it. Thank you

Steampowered...... Thank you, your comments make complete sense and this is indeed what we suspected. We felt the Judge was very reasonable and I doubt we would have come to a different conclusion with the same evidence before us. The audit does show the money was paid out to the claimant but in the absence of any paperwork stating that word for word then we are at a loss! Add that to the fact that the claimants friend was happy to lie!!! We are getting a 'full' summing up of the Judges verdict in which he mentions these matters so it should be relatively easy to prove in a small claims court. So we just need to sit tight and wait for the full judgement order and then we pursue the matter with the people that are responsible for claiming and spending this money.

Thanks for your input Unclebulgaria67, in answer to your questions: Over £3000 was paid to the manager who was entitled to the money. The previous treasurer stated the money paid was "for other things, books etc........ and that she was very careless with the paper trail of receipts etc" The treasurer swore on oath that she paid for lot's of stuff to the manager but NONE of it was in relation to the £3000 claimed. The accounts have been looked at and there are anomalies, again explained by the treasurer as "I must have made a mistake" Yes there is a question of illegality, possible gaining funds from a local authority by deception. They have signed for the money stating it had been paid to the manager, if they had not done this then the money would have had to be returned to the local authority and they would not have qualified for any further funding. The manager now claims she did not receive the money she signed for and admitted in the tribunal she only signed the form because she was told to so the admin manager could get the money. The admin manager counter signed the form but wasn't in court to explain her actions. The judge stated that if the money was gained 'by deception' then the respondents would have recourse against the claim. Unfortunately, and rightly he could only act on the evidence he had before him.

I hope I'm posting this in the right place as we've moved on from an employment claim. A brief overview: I'm speaking as a relatively new committee member for an unincorporated charity. The charity ceased due to lack of funds and is now insolvent, all assets have been sold to pay the debts. The manager decided to bring two claims against us in the Employment Tribunal, 1 - Unfair Dismissal = This was judged to be 'unfounded'. 2 - Breach of Contract = For non payment of contractual sums which were due in 2010 (£2000) & 2011 (£1000) £3000 in total. My query relates to the second claim of Breach of Contract. Grant money was supplied to the employee by the Local Authority and paid via the charity bank account, to keep the funds they had 'monitoring forms' which had to be signed and returned to the LA confirming they had received the payments. We have signed receipts in respect of both sums, signed by the Manager herself and then countersigned by the Admin Manager who dealt with the claims from the LA and then instructed the then Treasurer. No liabilities or creditors were listed as outstanding in the end of year accounts for both these years. The claimant stated (under oath) that she signed the form under duress so the Admin manager could get the money but she did not receive it. The Treasurer admitted she had received the money in the bank but did not pay it out to the manager. She also said her accounts are littered with errors which is why the money didn't show as being unpaid on the annual accounts which were submitted. The Admin manager did not attend but supplied a written statement to say the money was not paid. In summing up the judge stated that our evidence was compelling and he would have found in favour of the respondents on that evidence alone but he can not ignore the testimony of the previous Treasurer. He can not find any good reason why she would have come to court and lied knowing she is liable for her actions during her term with the charity so he awarded the £3000 for Breach of Contract. The judge also stated that no award can be made if it is gained illegally and that the Respondents may have recourse here but as the admin manger was not present to defend her own actions he could not consider that point. My question is, how do we pursue the 'clean hands' issue in contesting the award? I see two options: Appeal the tribunal decision on this part of the claim OR go to a small claims court. I will also add that these women are all friends with each other. Many thanks for your help in advance.

You don't have to do the EYFS, you should be able to do the next level in your chosen qualification (PW) which should then enable you to continue with your current employer and meet the needs for the legislative requirements at your centre. In my opinion it would be worth exploring! If you get the information on this and take it to your manager it shows initiative, she may even offers an alternative solution. If you answer Emmzzi's questions at post #3, I'm sure she will be able to help as she really knows her HR stuff Your personal contract is important for you moving forward with this, our contracts actually state "to partake in further training as required to fulfil the be brought into line with government legislation"............ or words to that effect. Apart from any Ofsted changes there are always refreshers required in other areas like 'Food Hygiene' & 'First Aid'. Your contract MAY state similar!!!

Check with your local council for the bursary and college placements before you give up! We have ladies who are in their 30's studying towards their Level 3 I will leave the HR advice on your constructive dismissal question to the more experienced contributors here. Good luck either way!

Have you checked with your local council to see if they offer a grant or other funds to complete your course? Most seem to offer this. The hardest part in getting the funding from the council's and onto a course seems to be having a 'practical work placement' but you seem to have that one covered so it would be worth investigating before you give up on your chosen career There are also companies that offer apprenticeships but again my knowledge is covering the EYFS but that doesn't mean they don't cover the PW that you are working towards, it wouldn't hurt to ask.

Lillyrobs - are you in England and governed by Ofsted?

Legislation has changed recently in this area whereby the EYFS (Early Years Foundation Stage) Level 2 was being 'phased out' which would make Level 3 the lowest grade counting against the Adult : Child ratio. I wouldn't give up, if you have gained level 2 then you should be able to continue working while studying towards your level 3. Your local council are likely to offer a 'bursary' which pays the local college direct for your study course. Good Luck

Good evening and thanks for the comments, all very helpful to me. Interesting comments from SweetLorraine on anyone not wanting to appear at an ET whereby they may prejudice themselves. On that note I have an update...... I received a call today informing me that Woman 2 (who received the SMP payments and wanted more redundancy money to account for her overtime loss) has / is withdrawing her claim!!!! I haven't received this officially from the Tribunal yet but guess she can just withdraw her claim without giving them an explanation. If she does give a reason to the tribunal will they pass that information on to me? The charity was 'unincorporated' so the committee are liable after the event for any losses etc. which occurred during "their time in office",.

Thank you steampowered, it was the affect on the ET proceedings that was my main concern, I just want to go and present the committee's defence and get it over with. You've understood the situation in regard to Claimant B perfectly. If the previous treasurer had not adjusted the figures in this way then the claimant would not have qualified or been entitled to the SMP payments.

Thank you Emmzzi, I'll remember that for next time.

I thought this question was best placed here as my question really relates to the ET hearing and how if it may be affected by the tax issue that the previous treasurer may have created. HMRC will need to know about any tax evasion but how will that affect the employment case? Will I need to notify the ET prior to the case if an investigation into the tax affairs are going ahead by the Inland Revenue? Is the hearing likely to be postponed until after the tax office have reached any conclusion? I'm not looking for a postponement, quite the opposite to be honest, we want this done and dusted so we can all move on. Yes the ET3 has been submitted.

Foodandbeverage..... I see where you thought there were 4 claims. Four involved in the 'events and claims' - the Two girls making the claims; the previous treasurer who made the payments (3rd person) and the manager (4th person) who seems to have received and sent the messages and instructions on the tax free payments and the timesheet adjustments re the SMP. Sorry if I've confused the issue.

Only 2 claims. 1st person - Breach of contract, non payment of a grant issued by our local council. The money was due and paid between 2008 - 2010 (3 payments from the council, one in each year). There are 3 signed receipts for these and the payments showing, not all through the payroll though. 2nd person - claiming she worked more hours than she did. This relates to her redundancy payment, the redundancy was paid on her contracted hours. She worked overtime for a month in 2012 and believes that should have been included in the redundancy calculation especially as there were other times over the years that she had worked overtime!!!! I took a quick look at the payroll printouts for this person just to see if she really did work these additional hours on an annual basis only to discover a short period of 'higher' sums paid, they stuck out like a sore thumb to be honest. On closer inspection I discovered that not all the sums due in the 3 months prior to this period had NOT been paid but they had kept a tally of the unpaid sums and then distributed those equally during the 6 week qualifying period (she was pregnant at that time). By doing this it allowed her to claim the Statutory Maternity Pay. I hope that helps you to understand the situation a little better as I appreciate all thoughts and comments on this.

I was originally elected by the current committee members as the case involved finances and I have some accounts knowledge. The previous treasurer who should be there standing up to account for her actions wouldn't answer our calls, mails etc. I asked the ET judge for an Order Amendment to include all the committee members (8 over the period involved) because the as a charity which has ceased, the liability falls on us as individuals. This is when the Judge wrote stating each committee member is responsible for their own actions during their time in office but we continue with the one spokesperson for him to address. The other Committee members will provide statements etc. The pair are aged between 40 and 50..... I used girls as a loose term, 'ladies' just didn't seem fitting somehow.

Thank you, that is exactly what I thought. Obviously I have the signed receipts and emails they've sent to each other about the payments, even some direct transfers showing on the bank statement so I feel confident the money isn't due. I'm stunned that despite the money they seemed to have gained already they are willing to proceed to a tribunal knowing full well they could potentially have been involved in fraud... I only imagine they didn't think it would be uncovered or forgot all the paperwork was left behind. I will keep all the information factual and only from the paperwork I have uncovered as I presume the Judge can or is likely to refer the matter to HMRC. Thanks again.

Thanks for your response Pusillanimous. The Charity was closed in November and everyone was made redundant while we still had the funds to pay the redundancies and other debts. I took over as Treasurer in early 2012 not realising the financial problems or my responsibilities.... lesson learnt there!!! The previous Treasurer was in office from 1999 up to 2012, she controlled the finances in there entirety up till early 2012 but continued doing the payroll until the end. Girl A is claiming non payment of a grant due from the council for training in 2008 - 2010. There are signed receipts for these payments but I have also found additional payments made which did not go through the paye system. The council contract states all payments are subject to tax & NI Girl B is claiming that she had worked more hours than she had and therefore thinks she was due more redundancy. She was paid her contracted hours in redundancy but had never worked the additional hours she had claimed to prior to my arrival. Going through her working hours on the payroll printout it is obvious that the hours in 2007 were 'adjusted' for the qualifying period to allow her to claim statutory Maternity pay. Because of the 'tax free' payments and the adjusted figures I am concerned the HMRC may be interested. The tribunal Judge has stated that I am the 'spokes person' for the committee members but the liability and responsibility is with the members in office at the time of any actions...... this makes me feel a little better but I will say the previous Treasurer isn't being very helpful I thought because she has been friends with the claimants and has been for years, guessing now there may be more to it!!!!

Not sure if I'm posting this in the correct section as it relates to a ET and HMRC but here goes. I took over as a Treasurer last year for a local charity run Pre-school which had to be closed down due to lack of funds and all staff were made redundant and paid accordingly, my work was voluntary and I received no payment. Two of the staff members are now seeking for 'non-payment of contractual sums' via the employment tribunal, both sums in dispute were from before my time in office so I completed a quick audit of the accounts and can happily defend both cases (signed receipts from employee of grants received). My problem is, during my audit I have discovered two things: 1/ Girl A - Received several payments 'tax free'; at least 3 x £500 during 2009 - 2010. There are emails from the Manager to the then treasurer telling her to do this!!! 2/ Girl B - Had her timesheet hours shaved for several weeks leading up to the qualifying weeks for her SMP and then they paid the shaved hours during the qualifying weeks so she could claim SMP in 2007. Without these additional hours during this period she would not have qualified. The original timesheets actually still have their handwritten notes on stating the number of hours to be carried over into the QW!!!! The four girls involved in these actions are all friends and have supplied statements to the ET stating the contractual sums they are claiming were not paid during 2008 - 2010, the SMP doesn't form any part of Girl B's claim. My questions are: What do I do with this information? If I pass these facts to HMRC and there is an investigation, will it affect the ET? Thank you in advance for any help and advice you can offer in this matter.

Alternatively he can complete a P46 (declaring to be only job) but the only problem with that is he would have to pay the emergency tax rate on a Week 1 / Month 1 basis. That would still be better than having no wage!

Having checked the qualifying details it looks like an employee was paid SMP when she shouldn't have been. If this is true then who would be liable to pay this back to HMRC the employee or the employer?

Perfect!! Thank you becky2585

I'm going through some 'old' accounts and may have an issue. One of the employees was paid for SMP in the year 2007 - 2008 and yet for the 3 years prior to going on maternity leave they had only ever worked for 11 hours per week and had never qualified / paid any NI. TBH, she took home more SMP then she did wages. This seems strange to me, does anyone know the qualifying rules for 2007 or able to point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance.