Wages!!

never-in-doubt

BarclaysManager wrote: »

There you have it, from a 2008 Barclays B7 contract. Barclays is willing, as an international, multi-billion pound banking company, to pay their employee's salaries into an account in your partner's name - doesn't sit well with these claims that banks freeze accounts of those doing the same...

The above is all my contract has to say about payments.

we've been saying this for days but 'clutching at straws' has now brought about the topic of suing employers and ending up in litigation! :eek:

I think this matter is firmly decided. Thanks for clarifying it. Be interesting to see crispy's answer now.....

Andystriker

I work in an industry where I am in daily contact with a Solicitor who is a specialist in Employment Law.

An employer cannot refuse to pay you. However if an employer insists that he will pay you by Bank transfer into an account in your name (which must also include a joint account), if that is not acceptable then by Cheque payable to the employee.

If the employee refuses these options and does take legal action against the employer the employee will lose.

(However if the employee gives the employer his name but someone else's account number then the employer would not know)

never-in-doubt

Andystriker wrote: »

I work in an industry where I am in daily contact with a Solicitor who is a specialist in Employment Law.

An employer cannot refuse to pay you. However if an employer insists that he will pay you by Bank transfer into an account in your name (which must also include a joint account), if that is not acceptable then by Cheque payable to the employee.

If the employee refuses these options and does take legal action against the employer the employee will lose.

(However if the employee gives the employer his name but someone else's account number then the employer would not know)

Hi Andy

Thanks for confirming this - shame you never came here 3 days ago lol.

Thats what we've been saying all along really, that the best recourse is to simply put the employee name in the field that asks for account holder as it doesn't really matter.

Cheers :T :T :T

masonic

never-in-doubt wrote: »

This is undisputed and cannot be disputed as it is actually quite factual.

:rotfl:That has to be the least concise phrase I've seen around here in a long time. Well done!

never-in-doubt

masonic wrote: »

:rotfl:That has to be the least concise phrase I've seen around here in a long time. Well done!

I know - its one of my many tongue-twister irrelevant (usually gramatically incorrect as well) sign-offs lol :rotfl::rotfl:

Andystriker

Thanks never-in-doubt,

I wonder if the OP is clear now;)

never-in-doubt

Andystriker wrote: »

Thanks never-in-doubt,

I wonder if the OP is clear now;)

LOL, I sincerely doubt it...... but thanks for clearing it up - just what we needed (final nail in the coffin so to speak)..

td_007

Andystriker wrote: »

I work in an industry where I am in daily contact with a Solicitor who is a specialist in Employment Law.

An employer cannot refuse to pay you. However if an employer insists that he will pay you by Bank transfer into an account in your name (which must also include a joint account), if that is not acceptable then by Cheque payable to the employee.

If the employee refuses these options and does take legal action against the employer the employee will lose.

(However if the employee gives the employer his name but someone else's account number then the employer would not know)

Wonder what did the trick here in this post....my post #56 and Andy's post #57 say exactly the same thing yet we went through another 50+ posts before agreeing what was said originally is full of merit :rotfl:

never-in-doubt

td_007 wrote: »

Wonder what did the trick here in this post....my post #56 and Andy's post #57 say exactly the same thing yet we went through another 50+ posts before agreeing what was said originally is full of merit :rotfl:

Mate - no. In post #56 you started to waffle on about HMRC and that is what caused us to deviate with another 50 posts lol :rotfl:

You're right though, you and Andy have said the same in posts 56 & 57 by confirming the employer will pay us etc. I think we went off track with your 2nd part about HMRC

jonesMUFCforever

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No it could not! Mate you know I usually agree with you but on this one it's just wrong.

What is so hard to grasp here? You have managers telling you they cannot - unless they suspect fraud then they have no right to do it! Notice crispy hasn't came back and substantiated this?

Can you? Do you work for a bank? Do you understand AML? It cannot and will not be blocked! Prove me wrong - please be my guest!

I can't on here because I would be divulging confidential information and therefore liable for dismissal if I was reported.
But I will confirm I have seen it happen - that is fact.