Enhanced redundancy pay v owed holiday pay

A bit 'Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted', as I was made redundant in 1995, but any answers may benefit someone else in a similar position.

As was the norm when I started with the company in 1968, you had to work for a year before accruing any holiday pay; if you wanted any leave before the year was up, it was unpaid. This changed in 1971 or 1973 (I think) and leave/holiday pay was accrued as you worked throughout the year for new starters; the question of reimbursing older employees for their 'banked' leave never arose until mid 1995 when redundancies were hinted at after the company had been bought out at the beginning of the year.

During the redundancy negotiations, I (along with 14 others in the same situation) was informed that "As the new firm was making an 'enhanced offer' (above basic government rates), we would not be receiving any payment for the banked leave". Most were owed 4 weeks but mine was 5 weeks and 2 days; at the time, this amounted to just over £2,000. When we queried this ruling, we were told in no uncertain way that we could "either accept the enhanced offer or you can go with the government redundancy scheme and then sue us for the holiday pay". :mad: Although we were in a union, their opinion was that, if we fought it, it would be a long drawn-out case that we might not win.

Apologies for the lengthy explanation.

Were we entitled to the 'banked' holiday pay?
Has anyone else been in a similar situation?
What would happen today?

Thanks in anticipation of any useful replies. :T