Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

sick pay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5920 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

hi new here

 

can anyone give some advice please

 

i had a week off on the sick (had sick note) my wife collected my pay slip and pay i received full pay for that week. went back to work at the end of the week (Fri)

i did all the wages for the staff and mine as normal but no pay slips were sent (our contract states pay on last working day) so i paid my self full pay. so on Sunday i called into work and the pay slips were on my desk my pay was £29.ssp and £20 tax rebate but for the last five years i have received full sick pay but in my contract it does state ssp only. so i phoned my boss on Sunday and asked them why i only have sick pay they told me that is was stated in contract. i told them that because they paid me full pay for the last 5 years that it is part of my contract.

i phoned again on Monday and was told i would get my full pay at PM i received a phone call from a personnel manager telling me i would not get my full pay and my contract was void? and told me i had to get proof from my doctor of every sick note Ive had. the doctor told me he does not keep records of sick notes.

so on Tuesday i brought up a grievance with my contract on Thursday they offered me a one off payment not for sick pay or overtime but for all the hard work i had done last year and to think about it. and i will receive a letter in a couple of days. i have not decided to except it but i had a note attached to my pay slip saying the payment will be in next weeks wages.

 

i can not carry on working their because of the way they treat me after 5 years service i already got another job at the end of the month but i will lose £5000. a year

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest weegirl

I had this problem once, and was able to argue the 'custom and practice' route. They also asked me for sick notes, but I just informed them that it is THEIR responsibility to upkeep my personnel file, not mine and I had provided all of the information required.

 

5 years is a long time for your employers to let things slip. I take it all employees received full pay? If so, you could threaten discrimination.

 

Once employers break policies, they will find it very difficult to suddently decide they are going to enforce them without an almighty row.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if employers have to pay SSP to their employee in accordance the DWP ie if you are off sick and send certificates to employers do they have comply and pay SSP

 

Or can they refuse to pay this or limited the amount you get because they do not want to pay you in accordance with their own policy. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

SSP is a fixed amount of £72.55 per week, which must be paid by your employer for all sickness after the qualifying period of 3 working days. The company should have their own rules about how you report sick, but basically as long as you have reported sick within the first seven days then they should pay you - you will also need to provide continual proof of sickness, usually a sick note or series of sick notes from your GP. They do not have to pay you if you fail to tell them you are sick within the first seven days. If you don't tell them within this time then they will treat you as being on your first qualifying day on the day that you tell them that you are sick.

 

Therefore, for the first three (working) days you receive nothing, then £72.55 per week for as long as you continue to provide evidence of sickness up to a maximum of 28 weeks. Beyond that you must claim Incapacity Benefit from DWP.

 

An employer cannot refuse to pay SSP on the grounds of age. There are grounds for exclusion, but these are mainly linked to qualifying periods and 'linking' periods, or where earnings are insufficient to meet the lower earnings level. Have a look HERE for more complete details.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Sidewinder my employer has stopped my SSP but I do not know why, I feel that it must because I am getting state pension as when you have passed 60 you do not have to paid NI and I expect that is why it was stopped. I have sent in certificates during the time I was off with an injury, if it not because of my age then it may because I had my hrs changed when I went back to work for a while before I had another accident because my employer would not supply a chair for me to sit while during my working hrs, which would not be out of the ordinary because they have supplied chairs for people who were pregnant. However, it is not because of my age or having my hrs changed then I cannot think why the have stopped my SSP.

 

I am seeing them soon so I will asked then. I have written and wrote to them several times for this information to no avail.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules say:-

 

Part-time, temporary and casual employees may all be entitled to SSP if they satisfy the qualifying conditions. Agency workers will also qualify if their contract lasts 13 weeks or more. The majority of employees who are unfit for work through sickness may be entitled to SSP, but they must satisfy all of the following conditions:

  • have notified you of their sickness within your own time limits or, if you haven't informed them in advance of any time limits, no later than seven days after the first day of sickness
  • be employed by you and have done some work for you under their contract
  • be sick for four or more days in a row - this is known as the period of incapacity for work (PIW)
  • have average weekly earnings equal to or more than the lower earnings limit for National Insurance contribution (NIC) purposes - £87 a week in 2007/08 (£90 a week in 2008/09) - regardless of whether or not they are required to pay NICs
  • have earnings on which you are liable to pay employer's Class 1 NICs, or would be liable to pay but for their age

In any one PIW, SSP is payable to an employee for a maximum of 28 weeks.

 

Your employer cannot therefore have stopped paying SSP on account of your age. Providing that you do work in return for money (ie you are an 'employee') and that you earn the equivalent of the lower earnings level for National Insurance (£87 per week) whether or not you are required to actually pay NI then you should be eligible for SSP.

 

Any other exclusions are detailed or accessible from the link in my previous post. If your employer is not giving you adequate reason for their refusal to pay, then contact HMRC and ask them for an opinion and if neccessary, assistance in resolving the problem with the employer.

 

Going back to your first post, did you have a break in service when you reached retirement age? Some companies used to insist on a break in service so that contracts could be changed for those over statutory retirement age - this was mainly so that life assurance, sick pay and other company benefits where age (sadly) increases the risk factor could not be argued under custom and practice. The new age rules have made the break in service less neccessary, as extensions to contracts are now more tightly governed, but I was just wondering whether the fact that you are 60 has a bearing on the fact that you are now arguing over SSP where in the past you have received company sick pay?

 

It doesn't affect the issue of your entitlement to SSP though.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidewinder that is most interesting what you say, I was employed by this company after I retired and have working for them for nearly 3 years and employed by them. I am going to see them soon due to a grievance that I have submitted regarding due care soon so I will bring up the subject of them stopping my SSP. The gave me company sick pay but stopped my SSP. I have looked the hand book. I really though that because I was retired an in receipt of state pensions that was why the did not let me have SSP.

 

I will post the outcome after I have been to see them. I needed to know about SSP before I the meeting with them.

 

Many thanks again for your advice.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the company sick pay more than SSP? If so are you sure they have really stopped it? They do have the right to use SSP to make up the company sick pay.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they have stopped it, I have had zero on my pay slips that they sent me yesterday, so they have stopped all pay, I understand the company one being stopped because you only get it according how long you have been employed by them, they have stopped all pay for four months now.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found out why my SSP had been stopped - apparently they had over payed me company pay for the length of services I had with the company, of course they could not tell me this in writing or even on the phone, I had to make a trip into work for them to explain this to me as they told me that it would have been too difficult for them to put it in writing to me, what nincompoops they are!!:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...