http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/ en michael.darlington@colemans-ctts.co.uk Copyright 2012 2012-05-15T08:28:00+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/colemans-ctts-visit-childrens-trust/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/colemans-ctts-visit-childrens-trust/#When:07:28:00Z Whilst Colemans-ctts recognises the importance of supporting charities by way of fundraising and raising the profile of the charity we realise it is as important to maintain our links with the charities once they have been forged. In order to maintain the momentum of fundraising it is very important to visit the charity and see directly how our fundraising benefits the children. The Trust provides facilities for children with multiple disabilities and complex needs. They may have been born with the difficulties or they may have acquired through either an accident or illness as a child. The Trust's aim is to ensure that children have as full and as ‘normal’ a life as possible. It is not the intention of the Trust to retain children indefinitely but to provide support to both children and parents, equipping them with the skills needed to return home. I am not from Tadworth and as soon as I told the taxi driver where I was going he spoke with admiration and pride about what the Trust does. He told me that the Trust was well known throughout the area and that residents did as much as they could to help the Trust. Once I had arrived the first thing that struck me was the beautiful grounds that the Trust was set in as well as the peace and quiet. Making my way to the Cedar Centre I was able to see the various buildings that make up the Trust as a whole. Fiona Adcock, who is head of the community team at the Trust, introduced the day. The day was made of people who work at The Children's Trust, from physiotherapists to the Head teacher of the onsite school as well as a tour around the facilities to see them in action. Listening to the speakers it was evident that to work at the Children's Trust you have to be passionate about its aims and the children that you help. It was inspiring to hear stories about children who had come to the Trust who were not expected to survive but whose lives have been turned around. This is due to the hard work and support from all those the children came in to contact with. It was not only the children who the Trust touched but often their parents as well. One story of a single mother whose daughter became ill was truly moving.  She arrived with her daughter and did not have any accommodation and was unable to drive. She was able to utilise the parental accommodation whilst her daughter underwent rehabilitation. By the time she left she had spent valuable time with her daughter, learned how to look after her and the Trust had facilitated suitable accommodation and driving lessons. For me, the tour was the best part of the day. Seeing the facilities in action and watching the joy and help it brought to the children was invaluable. It was clear that every part of the facilities were geared towards helping the children, be it by multi sensory rooms or a hydrotherapy pool. There is also a school on site which has drafted its own curriculum as the national curriculum simply can not apply. This has now been rolled out across the world. Seeing the Trust in action highlighted to me the importance of continued fundraising and support. We have so far raised money by sleep walks and marathons in the worst weather conditions imaginable and we are not stopping there. Watch this space for more fundraising activities and in the interim visit our Just Giving Page to see what we have raised thus far http://www.justgiving.com/teams/colemansctts Blog, News 2012-05-15T07:28:00+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/workers-dismissal-ruled-unfair-despite-flouting-health-and-safety/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/workers-dismissal-ruled-unfair-despite-flouting-health-and-safety/#When:09:55:21Z Visitor uninsured in case of accident Following his initial suspension Mr Smith was fired for unprofessional conduct as the company would have been uninsured had the visitor been involved in an accident.  Mr Smith had allowed the visitor onto the site to sort out an issue regarding noise levels emitting from the factory itself. However, despite ruling against Status UK Ltd, Judge Leslie Antis warned Mr Smith that he was unlikely to receive substantial compensation: “The award is to be decided at a later date and we have to consider whether you contributed to the dismissal.  If this is so this will affect the amount awarded.” Even if his award is nominal, the process will have been expensive for Status UK due to the legal fees they will have paid to pursue their cause this far. If you are considering dismissing an employee then speak to Lorna Valcin today to safeguard your business and minimise the cost of any potential litigation. Call our employment team today on 0808 155 9070 or make an online enquiry.  Blog, News 2012-05-14T09:55:21+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/chip-shop-girl-awarded-4000-by-employment-tribunal/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/chip-shop-girl-awarded-4000-by-employment-tribunal/#When:07:17:41Z When Ms Smith persisted with the matter he threatened to dismiss her and replace her with someone younger he could pay less to, which he did in early 2011. Ironically, the unmet holiday pay made up just a fraction of what she was eventually awarded, with the outstanding total amounting to just £66.94.  Mr Stark also had to pay Ms Smith £2,000 for discriminating against her because of her age and £2,059.73 in compensation for unfair dismissal. Clearly, had Mr Stark acknowledged Ms Smith’s right to holiday pay – and remunerated here appropriately – he would have paid just £66.94 and saved himself over £4,000 in paying compensation and possibly more in legal costs. Lorna Valcin of Colemans HR commented: “There were a number of HR problems with Mr Stark’s role, not only the cavalier attitude towards staff rights but there was also no contract of employment and he never provided Ms Smith with a payslip.  These would have been simple things to rectify but have ended up costing him dearly.” Safeguard your business from an employment tribunal by contact Lorna Valcin  or our employment team today on 0808 155 9070 or make an online enquiry.  Blog, News 2012-05-14T07:17:41+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/cumbria-police-spends-50000-a-year-defending-itself-from-employees/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/cumbria-police-spends-50000-a-year-defending-itself-from-employees/#When:10:38:48Z Recent figures released detailing employment claims made by Cumbria Police staff have shown that nearly £50,000 was spent defending the force from allegations of racism, sexism and unlawful deduction of wages between 2008 and 2011. Cumbria Constabulary faced action from employees in twelve separate cases, with three being lost at an employment tribunal, three being won and five settled before they reached the tribunal stage.  One case is still on-going. Indeed, in 2009/10 nearly £24,000 was spent on dealing with various claims and paying for a case that went all the way to an employment tribunal.   Police employees still reach employment tribunals despite safeguards These amounts were paid in spite of the fact that there is a body – The Cumbria Police Federation – that exists solely to ensure that these cases can be resolved before they reach the tribunal stage.  Lee Skelton is its chairman: “Only where all other avenues of resolution have been tried and failed do we consider taking a matter to employment tribunal.” Lorna Valcin, of Colemans HR, explained the risks to all employers: “Even although Cumbria Police have a body in place to limit the likelihood of facing a tribunal, they still had a dozen cases reach that stage in less than five years.  Most businesses don’t have this luxury and therefore need to tighten their internal processes to avoid hefty tribunal costs.” If you are worried that your business could be at risk of an employment tribunal then contact Lorna Valcin today to safeguard your business and minimise the cost of any potential litigation. Call our employment team today on 0808 155 9070 or make an online enquiry.      Blog, News 2012-05-13T10:38:48+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/multimillionaire-dismissed-driver-for-feeding-the-dog/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/multimillionaire-dismissed-driver-for-feeding-the-dog/#When:14:17:24Z An Employment Tribunal Judge ruled that Mr James’ employer, Raymond Mould, did not act reasonably in dismissing Mr James from his employment.  Mr James denies feeding a piece of bone to the dog, which had previously undergone surgery after eating conkers that had lacerated his intestine.  Giving his evidence to a Judge at the Birmingham Employment Tribunal, Mr James recounted how he was sacked from his post just hours after the dog was rushed to a vetinary hospital.  Mr James said that he had finished his own meal with a fellow staff member and simply fed the dog some gristle from a rack of lamb.  Mr James told the hearing, “I gave a piece of meat to the dog.  The dog sat there begging so I gave him a piece of lamb meat.  It was just what was left when I finished my dinner.  I didn’t consider it was a bone – as far as I was concerned, it was a piece of fatty meat.”  Mr James was sacked during a telephone call with his employer which lasted approximately 12 minutes.  In his statement to the Employment Tribunal, Mr James said, “Mr Mould told me that he had been to the vet in Solihull and the vet had found a lamb bone in the dog.  He said that my employment was terminated with immediate effect.”  Mr James telephoned his employer the following day to ask him to explain again why he had been dismissed.  He was told it was due to the incident with the dog and that his employer did not wish to have a conversation with him about it.  Deciding in favour of Mr James, the Employment Judge said that he had not reason to doubt the account of the incident provided by the Claimant.  Mr Mould told the hearing, “I was absolutely furious that he (Mr James) could have done such a thing in light of Merlin’s (the dog) long term medical history.”  Mr Mould also claimed that Mr James had been grossly irresponsible in feeding his dog, despite having knowledge of the animal’s intestinal problems which had required an operation in October 2011. In evidence, Mr Mould admitted that he had decided to dismiss Mr James from his employment prior to picking up the phone.  The Judge ruled, “I don’t accept that it is enough to give the Claimant merely an opportunity to change the decision maker’s mind.” “No reasonable employer in Mr Mould’s shoes would have done this”, the Judge said. When a Tribunal has to consider whether a dismissal for gross misconduct was fair, they will always have regard to whether the employer had a genuine belief in the employee’s guilt.  In this case it was impossible for the employer to have formed that belief because he failed to conduct an investigation into the incident.  Furthermore, Mr James was never given an opportunity to state his case at any investigation or disciplinary hearing. If an employer has unreasonably failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice then Employment Tribunals have a discretion to increase the employee’s compensation by up to 25%.  It is clear in this case that no investigation was carried out into the incident, no witnesses were interviewed and Mr James was not advised of his right to appeal the dismissal. This case emphasises the need for employers to follow the ACAS Code of Practice which sets out the basic principles of fairness that employers should follow when dealing with a dismissal.  The Judge himself in this case stated that simply picking up the telephone and telling your employee that they are sacked is not a way that any reasonable employer would behave.”  At the time of reporting on this case, the award of compensation has not yet been confirmed.  For more information See http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2174 Blog, News 2012-05-11T14:17:24+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/employee-sacked-for-swearing-was-unfairly-dismissed/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/employee-sacked-for-swearing-was-unfairly-dismissed/#When:10:08:04Z   Employment Tribunal Rules Clerical Assistant Was Unfairly Dismissed Clerical assistant Dale Evans won her case for unfair dismissal against MRJ Furnaces Ltd at a Birmingham Employment Tribunal last week after alleging that the company’s management had failed to carry out its investigation properly.     Mrs Evans was originally sacked following claims that she had sworn at work and behaved aggressively towards her manager – which she denied.  She also complained that she had been bullied by another employee and that when she was sent home she became depressed, seeking her GP’s advice as a consequence.           Conflicting Evidence   Tribunal Judge Jean Connolly admitted that there was conflicting evidence about what had actually transpired, however, she ruled in the claimant’s favour as MRJ Furnaces had not supplied sufficient evidence and also because she was satisfied that due process had not been followed in the investigation. Although the amount of compensation will be decided at a later date it is clear that had MRJ Furnaces handled the HR side of the matter more effectively then Miss Connolly’s decision may have been different.     If you are concerned that your business could face hefty costs as a result of an employment tribunal contact Lorna Valcin today to safeguard your business and minimise the cost of any potential litigation. Call our employment team today on 0808 155 9070 or make an online enquiry.      2012-05-10T10:08:04+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/employment-tribunal-forces-pendaragon-to-repay-employees-35k/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/employment-tribunal-forces-pendaragon-to-repay-employees-35k/#When:07:00:24Z In an unusual twist it wasn’t the employees who had made the claim that they were underpaid (as the deductions took them below the minimum wage threshold) but the HMRC, after Pendragon had argued that they were not deducting wages but that the employees had purchased the benefits and the relevant amount had been removed from their pay packets for “administrative simplicity”. In his ruling, tribunal judge Chris Chapman explained his decision: “It was axiomatic that these were payments made to the employer to reimburse him for the provision of a vehicle. It was the employer’s car. The employer retained the sums paid. “Although it was a benefit also of use to the employee, it was a payment made for the use and benefit of the employer.” Commenting on the case, Mike Moore, director of Deloitte’s Car Consultancy, said: “This case highlights that care needs to be taken where employers deduct from net pay. Therefore, manufacturers, fleet providers and dealerships that provide cars to their employees that are paid for by net deduction from pay, should take care that the deduction does not take an employee’s pay below the national minimum wage.” If you run a similar scheme then contact Lorna Valcin  or our employment team today on 0808 155 9070 or make an online enquiry.  Blog, News 2012-05-10T07:00:24+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/when-are-deposits-exempt-from-the-deposit-protection-scheme/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/when-are-deposits-exempt-from-the-deposit-protection-scheme/#When:09:28:58Z As explained in our previous blog, all deposits taken for current assures shorthold tenancies (AST) created after the 6th April 2007 have until the 6th May 2012 to register them without being liable for a fine. The Localism Act 2011 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional, Transitory and Saving Provisions) Order 2012, states that deposit protection relates to all deposits received for AST’s when the tenancy “was in effect on or after the 6th April 2012".   Do deposits from before April 2007 have to be secured in a deposit scheme? It is clear from the wording that the government wish to ensure that all current tenancies are caught in this Act. However if your tenancy started before the 6th April 2007 it is exempt from the original Housing Act 2004 and experts are divided on whether you are required to register your deposit. Certainly if the tenancy has been renewed after this date the deposit should be registered in one of the statutory deposit protection schemes and the prescribed information sent. We strongly recommend landlords err on the side of caution and register any outstanding deposits irrespective of the start of the tenancy to ensure you do not get caught out!   Do deposits from non assured shorthold tenancies have to be registered? Non assured shorthold tenancies are not covered by this legislation – for example: Company lets, lodgers and tenancies where the rent is above the maximum threshold. However these tenancies may well become AST during their lifetime (for example when the maximum rent threshold was raised in October 2010) and at this point the deposit must be registered. Blog, News 2012-05-05T09:28:58+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/landlords-need-to-protect-tenants-deposits-by-6th-may/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/landlords-need-to-protect-tenants-deposits-by-6th-may/#When:08:07:53Z The new rule, which came into force on the 6th April, means that landlords only have a few days left to make sure all their deposits are registered into a tenancy deposit protection scheme before the 6th May 2012 cut-off. From then on any deposits taken by landlords from tenants must be entered into the tenancy deposit scheme within 30 days. These new rules don't cover deposits created before the 6th April 2007, only those in the last 5 years, but having spoken to many of our clients, we strongly recommend registering deposits for existing tenancies prior to April 07.    What do landlords need to do before 6th May 2012 Check each tenancy you have to ensure all deposits are registered in one of the schemes 1. Register any remaining deposits with one of the deposit protection schemes 2. Make sure your tenants are given notice of the scheme and the all the information that is required   What are the 3 deposit security schemes? The DPS  - a custodial schemeMy Deposits  - an insurance scheme The Dispute Service - an insurance scheme If the tenancy started before the 6th April 2007 or may not be an AST, further information is coming. Landlords and letting agents must also make sure they inform their tenants about the scheme and give them the prescribed information. It's vital this is done as simply providing the scheme leaflet to tenants is not enough.    What is the prescribed information? Full details of what information is required can be found in the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007, however each of the approved schemes will be able to provide information as follows: The Deposit Protection Scheme My Deposits provide The TDS scheme provides their own form to complete.   How to serve the information Information on the general rules for service of documents can be found in Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Landlords should ensure that they keep a record of the date an manner of service so that they can provide evidence should the need arise. If a landlord finds themselves on the wrong side of a court claim when it comes to the new tenancy deposit scheme rules, the court must impose a fine of between 1-3 times the amount of the deposit and order the return of the deposit in full. To top it off, if you have not registered the deposit in the scheme, you will not be able to serve a valid section 21 notice to retake possession of the property.   Blog, News 2012-05-03T08:07:53+00:00 http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/colemans-staff-tackle-manchester-marathon/ http://www.colemans-ctts.co.uk/blog/colemans-staff-tackle-manchester-marathon/#When:07:53:29Z After a ten year hiatus the Greater Manchester Marathon returned this weekend. The twenty six mile course started in Longford Park in Stretford and took in the sights of Trafford Park, Sale, Altrincham and Dunham Massy. Along with 8,000 others, Roger Coleman and Paul Amison took up the challenge for Colemans-ctts LLP raising money for our national and office charities. Roger ran for our national charity, The Children’s Trust while Paul ran for our office charity, Christies. The marathon started at 9am and already the rain was quite heavy. As the race progressed the rain went from heavy to torrential. Gale force winds meant that an already mammoth task was made even more difficult for all of the runners. Once the runners came to Dunham Massey the course changed from tarmac ground to soft paths. Owing to the weather the run became more like a cross country race as the paths had become extremely muddy. Once out of Dunham Massey the runners headed back in to Manchester, running against strong winds and driving rain. In conditions like those the last six miles were very tough. A runner for 30 years, Roger Coleman described the race as in the top two of the most difficult races he has ever completed. Some of the races Roger has done include sixty mile mega-marathons in the Alps! Despite the horrendous conditions Roger managed to complete the race in 3 hours and 30 minutes coming in the top 500 of all the runners and 30th in the ‘Over 50’ category. Paul finished in 5 hours 25 minutes. This was his first marathon and a fantastic time in such adverse weather conditions. At one point there was no road, just a small river for Paul to wade through! Completing a marathon in any circumstances is a real achievement but the conditions of the weekend meant that all the marathon runners were put to the test. Obviously Roger rounded off a twenty six mile endurance test with a sit down – after he had walked the dog! Many congratualtions; an amazing achievement by both, especially Paul who suffered an inhospitable welcome to marathon running!  We are still raising money for The Children’s Trust and you can sponsor Paul and Roger here: http://www.justgiving.com/colemans-marathon-run. We have already raised over £1,500.00 in online and offline donations. Let’s try and make it to £2,000.00! Blog, News 2012-05-01T07:53:29+00:00