Latest posts:
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
Hi Stephen
Taken from direct gov site seems £157 is a generous offer
Who is eligible
For you to qualify for Statutory Paternity Pay, all of the following must apply:
•you must be the biological father or adopter of the child or be the mother's (or adopter's) husband, partner or civil partner or have or expect to have responsibility for the child's upbringing
•you must have continued to work for the same employer without a break for at least 26 weeks by the 15th week before the baby is due, or employed up to and including the week your wife, partner or civil partner was matched with a child
•you must continue to work for that employer without a break up to the date the child is born or placed for adoption
•you must be earning an average of at least £97 a week (before tax)
How much do you get
If your average weekly earnings are £97 or more (before tax), Statutory Paternity Pay is paid for one or two consecutive weeks at £124.88 or 90 per cent of your average weekly earnings if this is less.
How it's paid
Your employer will pay Statutory Paternity Pay to you in the same way and at the same time as your normal wages.
Statutory Paternity Pay is treated as normal pay and so they'll also deduct tax and National Insurance as usual.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
There is a definitive answer if a member of staff is unable to use their annual leave due to long term sickness they are entitled to carry it over to the next year.
I think to many people are being blinded by the maternity issue here.
However I would not make an issue of this and look at revising your sickness and maternity terms to cover this otherwise I can see a discrinmination case looming
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
I wonder if like myself overweight people are overweight due to health conditions and this could lead to more sickness.
I have found since being diagnosed with the conditions I have had more time off because the conditons are auto immune disorders therefore I seem to pick up everything going around especially when sick colleagues come in because they are scared of Absence Management.
So it is not being overweight that causes the problem being overweight is a symptom and I cannot alter that.
As previously said I know plenty of people without a weight problem, who have much more time off than myself.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
Gemma, the law is the law and laws are usually made to stop bad practice.
28 days per year is everyone's entitlement even yours.
I can assure you that when someone is on long term sick possibly without pay it is no holiday. They are sick and cannot work this is not a period of sun drenched beaches and sangria this is people who are seriously ill and sometimes fighting an extreme battle.
Ok so if someone is on njo pay you could pay them the holiday whilst off, but I would think it is better to have a fit employee in 4 days per week if that is how you both want it than in full time for a couple of months and then off again with the right to take action. Much less expensive in the long run
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
I should have said the days under WTD would be 28 days per year. You cannot be sick and on leave at the same time so bank holidays would count. However this member of staff is contratually entitled to 30 days per year.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
This arose due to the fact that year 1 could not take all leave as went off sick in the last couple of months of his leave year.
On return to work on rehab hours (was not allowed to take annual leave employers rules) then his 30 days anual leave was added to year 2.
He then had a period of long term sick due to Disability which meant on his return to work on rehab hours again not allowed to use annual leave during this period he entered year 3 with 57 days leave which he has only just been able to start using although year 4 is only around the corner so to speak.
This is exactly what is allowed and nothing is wrong with the calculation. He could have asked for it to be paid if he had wanted to but this would have caused problems.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
Stringer means that people on longterm sick are entitled to their full leave for the relevant year. I have recently had a case where due to longterm sickness the employee has 57 days leave to take this year.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
The main issue here is that the public sector has a higher proportion of staff covered under the DDA then the private sector.
The public sector also include time off for hospital treatment as sick leave.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
Basically I would play safe here and not take the risk
Holiday pay and sick leave: Ramifications of the Stringer ruling
In January this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that a worker on sick leave is also entitled to annual leave, but that member states could have rules that required or enabled the annual leave to be taken during sick leave.
The decision of the House of Lords in Stringer v HMRC (formerly Ainsworth v HMRC) has made it clear that any entitlement to pay in lieu of annual leave is to be treated as a "deduction from wages" and that it is therefore possible for the employee to claim in respect of a "series of deductions" potentially for up to six years (the time limit for contract claims).
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
This is very good Thank you
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
Carole
I have just had staff tell me they cannot get into work when they live only a few miles away not in the country but staff who live far out with more snow have managed it.
As for us disabled we managed to get in but then again we do have to prove that we are not taking advantage rather like working parents.
Strange that the very people who think we get away with things are those who are abusing this weather situation
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
I had exactly the same ticket said parked in disabled bay when not allowed had blue badge displayed.
Looked up info on internet and realised that I did not have to pay this parking fee especially as I had already paid to park so I didn't however most people do because they think they have too.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
and another there is stacks of stuff on the internet especially about certain named organisations so before paying check.
Marina Helen Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 1 WLR 2383
5 Apr 2000
CA
Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Waller, And Lord Justice May Land, Torts - Other, Road Traffic Casemap
1 Cites
1 Citers
The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established principles, that the driver had had his attention brought to the fact that wheel clamping operated, through appropriate notices to that effect. Where, as here, the driver persuaded the court that she had not seen the notices, the clamping remained unlawful. No malice was intended, and no punitive damages could be awarded. "The act of clamping the wheel of another person's car, even when that car is trespassing, is an act of trespass to that other persons property unless it can be shown that the owner of the car has consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his car being clamped. To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning." The Recorder had held, correctly, that the appellant by parking her car where she did was trespassing. Unhappily, he then jumped to the conclusion that the appellant had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the Recorder fell into error.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
This is one item I found
Tickets issued by private companies
Private companies can issue tickets to drivers parked on their property, but the rules are not the same as local authorities.
If you receive a ticket in a private car park, such as a supermarket car park, or private multi-story car park, remember that it is not criminal law, but contract law that applies. The driver enters into a contract with the landowner when they driver into the car park.
This means that it is only the driver that can be subject to a ticket from a private company. If they do not know who the driver was, they cannot claim a penalty. They have no legal right to demand that you identify the driver.
If you are approached by a member of staff inside a private car park there is no obligation for you to assist them in any way
If the company wish to pursue a claim in the small claims court, they have to prove that you were the driver of the car. Any comments that you make may assist them in this aim, so best to say nothing.
If you refuse to pay, the private company has to pursue you through the small claims court. It is up to them to prove a breach of contract so look at the terms carefully. These are usually printed on a sign at the entrance to the car park.
Additionally, you may be able to reduce any fine issued by a private company. Under contract law, they can only claim for any loss they have suffered because of your offence. They may try to claim a penalty of, say, £100, but in law they may only be entitled to any revenue they had lost. So, if you pay £2 to park for one hour, but stay for three hours, they can only claim for two hours of lost revenue, which is £4.
Clamped by a private company
Different rules apply if you are clamped by a private company for parking on private land. If you are clamped, you should ring the number the company provides to release your car. Do not damage the clamp as this would be criminal damage.
Check that the company has a license from the Security Industry Authority by calling 08702 430 100. A 15-digit Security Industry Authority number should appear on the receipt they give you when you pay up. If they are not licensed, report them to the police.
Areas where private clampers operate still have to display warning signs that are clearly visible. Take pictures of the signs if you feel they are inadequate and complain to the Security Industry Authority.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
I researched all this on the web earlier in the thread out of interest and found that these are not legal fines these can only be issued for parking on the highway. These are parking fees and as such are not enforcable.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
I have also been on both ends of this scenario and my thoughts are Parent and Child sspaces can be anywhere in the car park as long as you have enough room to get your child out of the car.
A disabled space by the very nature needs to be near the entrance as the only reason someone has a blue badge is because they cannot walk without pain etc.
My Mum always tried to look fit and healthy until the very end when she had to cart oxygen about and many would not have realised the pain she was in mostly from the genetic lung disease and angina she had. She also had a long list of other problems.
Too many she did not look ill but I can assure you after a couple of aisles the effort and pain was awful.
Also note people do not choose to be disabled. I chose to have children and as others have stated I did not have the luxuries offered to parents today.
As our children of today are so unfit a walk across from the otherside of the carpark is perhaps not such a bad idea.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
Studies show that 75% of the population will exaggerate or even lie for gain if they think they can get away with it.
Please give details of these studies.
God help the 25% of us who do not. As the Mother of an Aspergers sufferer I know that part of the problem is their total honesty. Aspergers people do not hype up their symptoms and I can assure you that any parent or carer does not need to there is enough going on anyway.
Just goes to prove how little people understand mental health. If it cannot be seen it is ignored.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
Ok I might have misunderstood something here but I am talking about normal police work not riot duty.
In fact as I understand it if a police officer who was sikh was on riot duty he would not wear his turban but remove it and have his hair in a small cloth cap inside the riot helmet.
Again I cannot see what the problem is as police caps are not PPE and offer no more protection than a turban.
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 136 posts
Too many times H & S is used as an excuse to discriminate. I am of the same view as Alex why now?
Sikhs have been police officers before and worn a turban so why the problem?
I would think that a police cap provides no more protection than a turban in fact maybe less. I remember my Dad as a police officer explaining the problems with the old helmets and do not believe any of these or the caps provide any more protection.
The turban is usually smart and clean and can be specific police colour and issue with suitable badge fitted to the front.
So I ask is this H & S or discrimination I wonder
0 (0)
