Jump to content


JSA claim help please!!!


Latestcagger
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2416 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

My employer is getting rid of me but I am worried about what the termination letter needs to say for JSA.

They are paying me a bit extra cash in order to do away with all the legal requirements they should be going through and asking me to sign a settlement agreement.

 

The letter they propose giving me says

 

'Your employment will terminate on the Termination date by mutual agreement by reason of redundancy'

 

It then says we will pay you XXX as compensation for the loss of your employment, providing you sign the settlement agreement (the agreement basically means I have to waive all my legal rights and in compensation i get a bit more than statutory.

 

But what is important to me is that I can get contribution based JSA because then my mortgage insurance will kick in. Can anyone tell me if a letter like that is going to be ok with the JSA people or whether it will not be sufficient for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when you make a new claim for JSA you will be asked the reason why your last job ended. If it's a case of being made redundant, a fixed-term contract ending, or something like the company going out of business then there should be no problem. In most cases like these they don't ask too many questions (they can't make a detailed investigation of every new claim) and I'd imagine the letter you have will probably be sufficient.

 

If there's any doubt about the reason for leaving, the matter would be referred to a Decision Maker who should evaluate each individual case on its merits. This would normally apply in cases where a person has resigned or been dismissed for some sort of misconduct, not where the claimant has genuinely been made redundant.

  • Confused 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

There are strict legal obligations on an employer who is considering making an employee redundant. A proper legal process has to be followed, not least those in your contract of employment.

If there are any deviations from the terms of your contract you have the right to bring a claim unfair dismissal before an Industrial Tribunal. This could result in significant compensation being awarded to you if it is found that the redundancy, or your selection for redundancy, has been conducted unfairly.

The question is; what rights are you being asked to waive that require a 'sweetener' in the form of compensation ? Also; might retaining your rights result in an even greater compensation package should you decide to exercise them if any skulduggery has been used here.

Unless there was some threat of financial loss to the employer in allowing you to retain your employment rights I do not believe that they would be offering any more than they were legally obliged to offer.

The DWP and the Revenue could very well get involved, and to your detriment, if they suspected a sham dismissal masquerading as a redundancy.

It could be argued that by selling your employment rights as defined in your terms and conditions of employment for the thirty pieces you expose yourself to the charge of deliberately giving up your right to actively retain, protect and defend your job.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

There are strict legal obligations on an employer who is considering making an employee redundant. A proper legal process has to be followed, not least those in your contract of employment.

If there are any deviations from the terms of your contract you have the right to bring a claim unfair dismissal before an Industrial Tribunal. This could result in significant compensation being awarded to you if it is found that the redundancy, or your selection for redundancy, has been conducted unfairly.

The question is; what rights are you being asked to waive that require a 'sweetener' in the form of compensation ? Also; might retaining your rights result in an even greater compensation package should you decide to exercise them if any skulduggery has been used here.

Unless there was some threat of financial loss to the employer in allowing you to retain your employment rights I do not believe that they would be offering any more than they were legally obliged to offer.

The DWP and the Revenue could very well get involved, and to your detriment, if they suspected a sham dismissal masquerading as a redundancy.

It could be argued that by selling your employment rights as defined in your terms and conditions of employment for the thirty pieces you expose yourself to the charge of deliberately giving up your right to actively retain, protect and defend your job.

 

This is what I'm worried about. Basically they are doing it the wrong way and want get me to sign a settlement to cover them, so i would be giving up any rights to take them to tribunal. The problem is that they intend to be rid of me one way or another, I think it's simply my face doesn't fit these days, and they know my only remedy would be a tribunal which is stressful, expensive and puts the kiss of death on another job really....so the letter will say redundancy but the settlement agreement is a small sum to buy my rights.

 

I feel in a catch 22 situation....but my understanding is that if the letter is worded correctly I'll probably be ok, I'm really stressed about the whole situation.

 

Thanks Antone, that's probably true that they don't really have the resource to look into the ins and outs of each case. I hope not anyway....

Edited by Latestcagger
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Antone, that's probably true that they don't really have the resource to look into the ins and outs of each case. I hope not anyway....

 

Well no, they can't check out everything. But Lapsed Workaholic does make a good point about the legalities of what's going on here. You could post a question in our Employment Issues forum to see if the folks there have any suggestions or advice.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no, they can't check out everything. But Lapsed Workaholic does make a good point about the legalities of what's going on here.

 

Yes I am concerned that Lapsed Workaholic is right, especially in relation to mortgage insurance....but they will not go down a fair redundancy process, because that doesn't suit them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad that you have given serious consideration to what I have written and that it has given you cause to reconsider any initial course of action that you may have been contemplating.

 

It could be worth risking going along with what your employer suggests if you only had the DWP and Jobcentre to contend with. Their inefficiency could more or less be relied on to fail to discover any wrong-doing.

 

But, if a mortgage insurance company is going to get involved paying out money, you may rest assured that they will leave no stone unturned trying to find a way to excuse themselves from paying back a penny.

 

If you haven't decided already my own preferred course of action would be to tell the employer to go on ahead and make you redundant but do it properly and legally. You have nothing to lose since you are likely to be redundant anyway whatever happens unless you regard doing without a bit extra cash a loss. On the plus side, you may get some more time in paid employment, or even hopefully get to keep your job.

 

You would also retain the right to take legal action should you feel it necessary. You do not elaborate on why you believe the whole thing stinks but you obviously believe it does.

 

Last but not least you would have a clear conscience and nobody would be able to place the responsibility for losing your job at your door, if you still had one after the mortgage insurance investigators had done with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input. I think I have to accept the redundancy, it's been made quite clear that I am going out one way or another. You can always get rid of someone if you are ruthless and put your mind to it.... Tribunals are no use, if you go to a tribunal you are making yourself very hard to employ afterwards, and at least if I go down this route the reference will be OK.

I guess this means that I need to accept I will probably get contribution based JSA but not my mortgage insurance payout :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not let the fear of reference challenge your thinking.

 

As someone that took a previous employer to tribunal, I managed to get reemployed later in the same industry. As part of any agreement to resolve the tribunal you agree a factual reference that is legally binding on them. They normally accept this as part of a deal. If you do not break the confidentiality they will protect the reference.

 

As for a new employer, you can make any reason why you decided to move on :)

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...