Statutory Sick Pay

aarong1985

Mum's been off work with her back since March and she's been on full pay until 11th September when she went onto half-pay.

Her wage slips for this time (March-September) make no mention of SSP at all, merely her contracted hours and salary. So the wage slips for this period are the identical to the 6 months prior, for example.

However she was expecting SSP to kick-in once her pay was reduced to half-pay but she's been told that SSP was running alongside her full-pay from the day she got signed off from the GP.

She wondered if her employer had been paying her £88.45 a week less and topping that up with SSP but they assured her that wasn't the case, and in any event that should have appeared on her wage slip.

It looks as if what they're saying is that SSP has been running for most of the 28 weeks at £0, she wasn't actually getting anything for it but as each week passed it counted towards her 28 week entitlement.

Does this sound right to anyone? It seems ridiculous that she can receive £0 SSP since March and it still counted towards total time-limited allowance.

McKneff

Sorry but you don't get both half pay and SSP


You would get one or the other, which ever is the greatest.


After a time, if her half pay is greater it will drop down to just SSP depending how long she is off7

aarong1985

But she's been told her SSP "runs out" in October, but she's not actually received any SSP yet

Carl31

SSP is what you are legally entitled to, like a minimum amount, for a certain period

If your mum has been receiving above this, the employer has been receiving the SSP, and passing it on via payroll, plus an additional amount on their behalf, so she has been getting it in with her payments

pmlindyloo

Your mum could have a look at her contract of employment to see what it says.

Employers can pay contractual sick pay, SSP 'topped up with contractual sick pay' or just SSP.

Whatever system they use there will be either the SSP in payment or there will be a kind of underlying entitlement for it hence the 28 weeks of SSP will run for 28 weeks from when she gave in the first sick note (minus the number of days not counted - if this in her contract.)

When her 28 weeks of SSP runs out she can claim contribution based ESA (if she is eligible) and still continue to get the contractual sick pay.

Hope that makes sense!

chrisbur

Carl31 wrote: »

SSP is what you are legally entitled to, like a minimum amount, for a certain period

If your mum has been receiving above this, the employer has been receiving the SSP, and passing it on via payroll, plus an additional amount on their behalf, so she has been getting it in with her payments

In fact the employer has not been receiving any SSP, the full cost of the sick pay including the SSP element is down to the employer. There is no government subsidy for the SSP system even the limited subsidy that existed for some employers finished last year.

Torry_Quine

When her entitlement to SSP finishes she should have received a form from her employer stating this which means she can now apply for ESA.

chrisbur

aarong1985 wrote: »

But she's been told her SSP "runs out" in October, but she's not actually received any SSP yet

As others have said the SSP payment is a minimum figure which the employer has to pay and this can be included in the company sick pay provided that it is paid for the same days and the company sick pay is equal to or more than the SSP due for any day.
Regarding the actual operating of SSP an employer is not required to keep any SSP records if their sick pay scheme pays more than the SSP requirements, except to advise when the SSP is finishing so that the transfer to ESA can be arranged.
As far as the actual cost of SSP or company sick pay is concerned the employer has to pay for both; so not a case of topping up with SSP it all comes out of the employer's pocket.
So providing the employer has paid the equivalent of the SSP or more and notified (SSP1 form)when the SSP ends they have done everything that is required of them.

TELLIT01

SSP and company sick pay is a source of a lot of confusion for employers, employees and DWP staff! In your mother's case it seems that part of her pay from the time she went sick has actually been SSP despite the fact that is hasn't been shown on her payslip. Until I started working for DWP I'd never even heard of SSP and it had never shown as a separate item on my payslips.
Mckneff is wrong to say you either get SSP or half pay, part of the half, or full, pay during a period of absence is SSP.
Your mother's employer will provide her with a form SSP1 to show when SSP payment ends. She will need to claim ESA from the following day. ESA pays less than SSP.

bigbill

It could be she had not earned enough to qualify for any SSP so her employer has paid her full pay instead.


Regardless she has been entitled to SSP since day one of sickness weather paid any or not.


She should have been given a form SSP1 when she first went sick if not entitled to any SSP or after 28 weeks on SSP.

sangie595

McKneff wrote: »

Sorry but you don't get both half pay and SSP

I do. I get full pay for six months and then half pay plus SSP for six months. SSP is only absorbed into the pay when on full pay as it would be foolish to pay someone more than normal to be off sick.