Termination of employment due to ill health

Emplawyer

Leaving the abuse and petty point scoring aside, I maintain that it is quite reasonable to assume that if someone answers the question (my emphasis) :

you were working PT,but were you still on FT contract and wages? (post 2)

with the answer:

Yes my contract didn't alter.

then they were actually on fulltime wages.

None of the other extracts quoted actually explicitly state otherwise - you have all assumed that from incomplete information.

However I have said that we should await the OP's clarification - others seem to have jumped immediately to the opposite conclusion and I think the howls of derision for not doing so are quite uncalled for.

There are lots of employers who will pay fulltime wages on phased returns - public sector mainly but also where an employee has had an accident or assault at work or work-related illness for example, that is quite common. I have certainly come across it in a number of different areas eg nursing, teaching, Post Office, civil service to name but a few.

But my short experience of this board has taught me that there are some pretty nasty people out there. You try to help people in need out of the goodness of your heart, and because others feel you're straying on to their territory, and feel threatened by losing their monopoly of gratitude, they hound you out. Yes I am an employment lawyer, and where people have picked semantic holes in my advice it has been where I have been trying to give quick answers during a busy schedule in lay terms and in a non-patronising way - something others may wish to try. In some cases, as here, the points raised are matters of opinion and interpretation, not fact, in others, because advice may not have dotted every conceivable i and crossed every possible variation of t, I am accused of being incompetent, even though the substantive question, based on what information has been provided, has been addressed.

So I can and will now quite happily walk away from this.

SarEl

Before you do - could you answer my question and explain what kind of employment lawyer you are? Because you do seem to have set out to create the impression that you are one.

KiKi

Emplawyer wrote: »

Leaving the abuse and petty point scoring aside, I maintain that it is quite reasonable to assume that if someone answers the question (my emphasis) :

you were working PT,but were you still on FT contract and wages? (post 2)

with the answer:

Yes my contract didn't alter.

then they were actually on fulltime wages.

I appreciate what you're saying, but it was clear from her post that her contract had altered - she wasn't working full time hours (certainly). Just because she said it hadn't altered, that doesn't make it the reality.

You try to help people in need out of the goodness of your heart, and because others feel you're straying on to their territory, and feel threatened by losing their monopoly of gratitude, they hound you out.

I think that's unfair. There are a number of employment lawyers on here, and many others with an excellent working knowledge of the law. I assume that you're referring to SarEl. 'Semantics' matter in law - as you well know. And it seems to me (simply from what I read), that she's 'picking holes' because what you've posted is factually inaccurate.

I also accept that no-one on these boards should ever take what is posted here as legal advice. Unfortunately, it's just not the reality! If people think you're an employment lawyer, they will take what you say at absolute face value, without question, and may well act on it. So if you're hurried and busy, and make a mistake for those reasons, and no-one picks up on it, it may cause problems for the poster asking for help.

I'm frequently making little mistakes on here - but then I'm not an lawyer - and people will pick me up on it, not to hound me out or be unkind, but to protect the poster who's asked for help.

Yes I am an employment lawyer,

Thank you for clarifying.

and where people have picked semantic holes in my advice it has been where I have been trying to give quick answers during a busy schedule in lay terms and in a non-patronising way - something others may wish to try.

Well - that was patronising in itself.

This honestly is a nice place, with good people who are ALL here out of the goodness of their hearts because they want to help others. But mistakes will be picked up on - by lots of different people - to protect those asking the questions.

I've been leapt on several times, I can assure you. And not in the good way...
KiKi

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

Before you do - could you answer my question and explain what kind of employment lawyer you are? Because you do seem to have set out to create the impression that you are one.

No, he or she hasn't "set out to create the impression" but has categorically stated "Yes I am an employment lawyer".

Are we now going to speculate whether that means barrister (silk or junior), solicitor, legal executive, paralegal or whatever? Even if we do, where does it get us as there is no means of checking the qualification of a person behind an anonymous user name.

Or, are we just going to accept that a number of people from various backgrounds generously offer informal advice as best they can.

I think my signature line sums it up quite well!

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Or, are we just going to accept that a number of people from various backgrounds generously offer informal advice as best they can.

Yes I can quite happily accept that even when I disagree with them. But as Kiki has observed, to go out of your way to create an impression of a certain kind creates a sense of security in the advice given which may lead a poster to believe that the advice is "legal advice" and is "better" than other advice given by other posters. And that is quite dangerous if it is wrong, based on false assumptions, or on a failure to read the actual posts - which in Emplawyer's case it has been on a number of occasions now.

Regular posters on here are mostly aware of what I do for a living, but most of the posters asking questions have not a clue - and never ask. My advice is taken as it is given - posters can either accept it or not, and I see no reason to make it appear to be "better advice" than any other advice simply because it comes from a lawyer. As I have said before, even lawyers can make mistakes - I know I do - but to make them regularly, and to plead that lack of time (which is actually lack of care - either in the law or in your reading) is unprofessional to say the least.

I have never had any objection to Emplawyer posting here as much as they want, and they may post accurate advice or not - as others do. What I object to is a user ID and an attitude that distorts the value of their posts and makes people believe something which may not be true at all. It would be ever so easy for Emplawyer to do as others do and have a bland user ID that does not appear to indicate a profesisonal standing which any of us, including me, may or may not have. I might point out that in one of his/her first posts, Emplawyer very rudely demanded an apology of someone for daring to disagree with his/her advice (which was in fact correct) - Emplawyer appears to be much less able to hand out the apologies when he/she has been wrong.

mia123

Hi
Need a bit more help.
Have received final pay out and payslip.
Tax and N.I have been deducted.I was a normal rate tax payer when i went off sick.
Should tax and N.I have been deducted.
My only income is long term I.B.
1. Tax code on payslip 752L
2.Tax codes received HMRC 6/4/11-5/4/12 :as per there letter states
747L- to send to the Jobcentre plus.
BR- we have asked xxxx to use this code ie 20%.

As my only income is I.B and this doesn't use all the personal allowance should they have deducted tax.
Thanks

mia123

Anybody have any ideas re post 57.

Thanks

Uncertain

I THINK (but don't understand why) it is normal to use the default BR code for payments made after somebody leaves.

In effect this means that no personal allowance is applied therefore 20% tax is deducted from the whole payment.

Obviously this means you have paid too much tax and it saddles you with the job of reclaiming the excess from HMRC.

I'm sure the employer will argue they have acted correctly and are only following the rules.

Sorry!

SarEl

I am pretty sure that BR is an emergency tax code - I recall my accountant explaining this about wages for staff who hadn't had tax details confirmed by HMRC and didn't have p45's. I think it may be used because they don't know what income you may have had, and therefore can't determine whether your tax free allowance has been used or not. In such cases HMRC require employers to assume it has on the basis that HMRC would prefer the money in their coffers than trying to reclaim it from you. They seem to have trust issues:)

mia123

Thank you for your replies.
You are probably right Sarlel on trust issues.:)
I will await my P45 and then I assume if applicable I will need to contact HMRC to claim any tax due.