Following my previous thread, I have received my final pay and P45, however I have not been offered any form of redundancy. My fixed term contract ended on the 28th December and, after requesting a letter, I received confirmation that the reasons behind the no-renewal of my fixed term contract were a lack of work to justify keeping all full time employess. So, it is my understanding that in order for a redundancy to be genuine it must fit 1 of 2 categories, under the Employment Rights Act 1996 a dismissal is perceived to be enacted by reason of redundancy where there is diminshed requirement of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind. So it appears that I have been made redundant, but not offered my statutory redundancy despite having worked continuously on successive FTC for just over two years. Am I right???

Hi, Hi to everyone - I hope you can help me. Last year (2 Dec 11 to be exact) I unfortunately had to put my business of 8 years into voluntary liquidation. It was extremely upsetting to say the least. I had three personal guarantees signed on overdrafts or heavy equipment leases; one each with HSBC, Academy Leasing and CVF. The Academy and CVF ones are joint and several with another ex-director. Having suffered the loss of the business, I had no income obviously and wrote to each of these companies in turn with a Citizens advice Bureau prepared statement of my personal financial affairs. Yesterday, however, I received a Statutory demand from Bermans Solicitors on behalf of Academy Leasing demanding the £17,955.91 that they claim we owe them. we have both disputed the total amount we owe them is £17K because we feel that they completely undersold the equipment in an attempt to recoup some of their money and have not (after numerous requests) provided us with any proof that they received fair market value for the machinery they sold. It looks on the surface that they have sold it back to the manufacturer directly for a significantly reduced sum, a company with whom they have considerable dealings - it looks quite dodgy actually. Whilst they seemed to ignore my last request to them for information regarding the offers they received, they did write back to the other guarantor and say that it was an all monies guarantee and that they were under no obligation to mitigate at all. Surely though, if they have chosen to mitigate their losses they have to be fair and reasonable to us as guarantors? I intend to try and have the Stat demand set aside. Can anyone offer some advice please???? Thank you.