FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Taxpayers to pay £3,000 Compo
Taxpayers to pay £3,000 Compo
Jump to: Newest in thread
£3,000 compensation to be paid to each former empoyee of Woolworths. I suppose it's just in one way but sounds like someone at the administrators cocked up by not giving the appropriate notice/consultation. Anyone got on _iews on this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
My first thought on hearing of this was why weren't the Administrators liable, they get very well rewarded.
Sad to see there is no compensation payable to anyone who worked in a shop with 20 or less workers.
Maybe the union should average it out so they all get say £2,879 each. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *acreadCouple
over a year ago
central scotland |
This is ppl that were not claiming dole money and lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
It beats given compensation to jailed criminals for whatever reason the lawyers can dig up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
My first thought on hearing of this was why weren't the Administrators liable, they get very well rewarded.
Sad to see there is no compensation payable to anyone who worked in a shop with 20 or less workers.
Maybe the union should average it out so they all get say £2,879 each."
Thats my point the administrators should have sorted it at the time - bet they made sure the banks had the lions share of any asset and it seems the workers were "forgotten about" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So this is really about the 'Banks'
its about the administrators or whoever is resposible cocking up and leaving a legacy for the taxpayer"
The tax man has first call on any funds after paying out redundancy and they have final approval on payouts. As far as I remember the shareholders got less than 10% of their investment after outstanding taxes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need."
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"£3,000 compensation to be paid to each former empoyee of Woolworths. I suppose it's just in one way but sounds like someone at the administrators cocked up by not giving the appropriate notice/consultation. Anyone got on _iews on this."
Administrators should be fully liable for the cock-ups during the administration and directors should be suspended from any other directorships for at least 90 days. Most directors risk nothing but insist on huge rewards - time to bring them under control. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"£3,000 compensation to be paid to each former empoyee of Woolworths. I suppose it's just in one way but sounds like someone at the administrators cocked up by not giving the appropriate notice/consultation. Anyone got on _iews on this."
i have a _iew on this... your story isn't quite correct....
actually if you look further into what has happened.. there are about 3000 people who won't get payments because they worked in woolworth stores with less that 20 employees in them... and they are actually exempt for the legistlation that covers the larger stores...
so if you want an actual opinion... I think the govt fund should do the right thing and pay ALL the staff what has been agreed...
oh... not the answer you were expecting then???
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry forgot about the taxman he needs all the money he can get so he has more to spread out among the super rich.
Oh and the super rich who in the main pay verry little or no tax."
You might be better sticking to subjects you understand. The super rich actually contribute to the countries economy and pay out to the lazy work shy scroungers. I would hazard a guess the super rich pay far more tax a year than you even earn.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *BW38jWoman
over a year ago
Dudley/Telford |
"£3,000 compensation to be paid to each former empoyee of Woolworths. I suppose it's just in one way but sounds like someone at the administrators cocked up by not giving the appropriate notice/consultation. Anyone got on _iews on this."
its money due to them under the emplyment protection act without this act employers could simply close a company down ditch the staff and not pay any back wages or redundancy.
and like it or not woolworths paid a fortune in corporation tax PAYE, employers national insurance (much higher thsn employees pay) and VAT over its lifetime , so pay the staff hope they enjoy it personally |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"So this is really about the 'Banks'
its about the administrators or whoever is resposible cocking up and leaving a legacy for the taxpayer"
actually... if after the costs, there had been no money to pay the staff.... it would have come out of the same fund that it is now being paid out of now, since it was set up to protect people in this situation anyway.....
see.. i am not sure what point you are trying to make? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *b430Man
over a year ago
Tayside |
"Sorry forgot about the taxman he needs all the money he can get so he has more to spread out among the super rich.
Oh and the super rich who in the main pay verry little or no tax."
Wrong again he probably needs it so he can put it in the NI fund for things like this happening in the future to others when companies go bust and can't pay their employees what they are due.
The following is taken from the Governments website on "Your rights if your employer is insolvent"
"What you can claim
You can claim for all your outstanding pay from the insolvency practitioner. There is no guarantee that the full amount you are owed will be paid as this depends on whether enough funds are raised from the sale of your employer’s assets.
Some debts, including holiday pay and wages, will be 'preferential debt' when your employer’s assets are shared out. This means they must be paid before certain other debts.
As full payment cannot be guaranteed, there are special arrangements for employees to claim the basic minimum of debts owed to them from the National Insurance Fund. These claims are:
•redundancy
•wages - up to a maximum of eight weeks
•holiday pay - up to a maximum of six weeks
•compensatory notice pay - one week after one calendar month's service rising to one week per year of service up to a maximum of 12 weeks (new earnings will be taken into account)
There is a limit of £400 a week (£430 a week from 1 February 2012) on the amount you can claim for your weekly pay." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need.
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership. "
Unless it's a football club. When, for some perverse reason, football related creditors get first divi.
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *acreadCouple
over a year ago
central scotland |
Sorry doctor rock but I suggest you take your own advice there are so many loopholes that if you research some of these earning millions in a year can get away with paying as little as £1 a year.
Buying non existing gold wine etc there are lots of ways that are not open to the ordinary punter just look it up its all on the net. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need.
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership.
Unless it's a football club. When, for some perverse reason, football related creditors get first divi.
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on. "
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The cause was the Administrators simply made people redundant rather than engage in the statutory 90 day consultation. Hence anyone working in a shop with 20 or less employees are not, and sadly never were, entitled to a payout. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So this is really about the 'Banks'
its about the administrators or whoever is resposible cocking up and leaving a legacy for the taxpayer
actually... if after the costs, there had been no money to pay the staff.... it would have come out of the same fund that it is now being paid out of now, since it was set up to protect people in this situation anyway.....
see.. i am not sure what point you are trying to make?"
Yes I know the government pays redundancy if the company cant- but y understanding is that the employees got their redundancy payements at the time this is purely comensation because the administors didnt comply withe the legislation and therefore were negligent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need.
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership.
Unless it's a football club. When, for some perverse reason, football related creditors get first divi.
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on.
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies. "
HMRC didn't find so, they didn't even have enough % of debt to carry a vote on the matter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry doctor rock but I suggest you take your own advice there are so many loopholes that if you research some of these earning millions in a year can get away with paying as little as £1 a year.
Buying non existing gold wine etc there are lots of ways that are not open to the ordinary punter just look it up its all on the net."
There are tax loopholes and so the super rich but they will be paying far more take than you are. I am dam sure if you were paying £500,000 plus a year you wouldn't be happy. The fact is they in the main dont break the law unlike the 1000s who fiddle benefits. You obviously lack knowledge in this area. Get your facts right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need.
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership.
Unless it's a football club. When, for some perverse reason, football related creditors get first divi.
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on.
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies.
HMRC didn't find so, they didn't even have enough % of debt to carry a vote on the matter."
He still has first claim on nothing if nothing is left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on.
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies. "
actually dr rock... in this case.. you are wrong... which is why HMRC took them to court in the 1st place....
fa bylaws say they have to pay football creditors off 1st...
so they paid their football creditors and then said they didn't have any money so offered to pay "part" of what they had left as a settlement agreement.....
the HMRC told them where to go, and took them to court to get the full amount..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *acreadCouple
over a year ago
central scotland |
You dont get the point a lot do pay it but a lot exploit the loopholes and pay nothing I am 100% right here.
Are you telling me it doesnt go on?
And as far as the dole goes i do know there are a lot of shirkers there as well as a lot who dont want to be there.
I started my 15th birthday and worked ever since so I am not one of the dole scroungers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *BW38jWoman
over a year ago
Dudley/Telford |
"Sorry forgot about the taxman he needs all the money he can get so he has more to spread out among the super rich.
Oh and the super rich who in the main pay verry little or no tax.
You might be better sticking to subjects you understand. The super rich actually contribute to the countries economy and pay out to the lazy work shy scroungers. I would hazard a guess the super rich pay far more tax a year than you even earn. "
i agree on some of your sentiment, but as in former life i had experience in anti avoidance work (avoidance is legal evasion is not) if your super rich you can afford to get the best legal accountants in the world to get you out of paying the right tax. yes they pay in £ more than the average 20k a year earner, but proportionate to their gross salaries they pay much less |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry doctor rock but I suggest you take your own advice there are so many loopholes that if you research some of these earning millions in a year can get away with paying as little as £1 a year.
Buying non existing gold wine etc there are lots of ways that are not open to the ordinary punter just look it up its all on the net.
There are tax loopholes and so the super rich but they will be paying far more take than you are. I am dam sure if you were paying £500,000 plus a year you wouldn't be happy. The fact is they in the main dont break the law unlike the 1000s who fiddle benefits. You obviously lack knowledge in this area. Get your facts right. "
So what your saying is because someone has a lot of money they shouldn't have to pay the same percentage as everyone else?
I'm sure people who earn 10's of millions do pay more tax than me (even 1% of there income as tax would be more than me) but they pay a smaller percentage which is wrong. The loopholes need closing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need.
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership.
Unless it's a football club. When, for some perverse reason, football related creditors get first divi.
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on.
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies.
HMRC didn't find so, they didn't even have enough % of debt to carry a vote on the matter.
He still has first claim on nothing if nothing is left. "
If i recall correctly, it is the Administrators themselves who get first call on any assets, for their generous fees of course.
Oh, and Dr Rock, re sticking to what you know. Do you not think it would be much better if the Administrators recovered as much as they could FROM the debtors?
To give to the creditors? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on.
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies.
actually dr rock... in this case.. you are wrong... which is why HMRC took them to court in the 1st place....
fa bylaws say they have to pay football creditors off 1st...
so they paid their football creditors and then said they didn't have any money so offered to pay "part" of what they had left as a settlement agreement.....
the HMRC told them where to go, and took them to court to get the full amount....."
and lost. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need.
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership.
Unless it's a football club. When, for some perverse reason, football related creditors get first divi.
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on.
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies.
HMRC didn't find so, they didn't even have enough % of debt to carry a vote on the matter.
He still has first claim on nothing if nothing is left. "
HMRC don't have first claim, they lost preferential creditor treatment a few years ago, after footballing creditors there left fighting with everyone else |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need.
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership.
Unless it's a football club. When, for some perverse reason, football related creditors get first divi.
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on.
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies.
HMRC didn't find so, they didn't even have enough % of debt to carry a vote on the matter.
He still has first claim on nothing if nothing is left.
If i recall correctly, it is the Administrators themselves who get first call on any assets, for their generous fees of course.
Oh, and Dr Rock, re sticking to what you know. Do you not think it would be much better if the Administrators recovered as much as they could FROM the debtors?
To give to the creditors? "
You have spent too much time in the dark with your feet in manure mushroom old man if you think paying due taxes doesn't happen.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *BW38jWoman
over a year ago
Dudley/Telford |
"The banks are always first to get the money and the workers usualy last as usual the law is all in favour of the big instiutions and not the ones with the greatest need.
Totally wrong the taxman comes before any other debtors when a company goes into receivership.
Unless it's a football club. When, for some perverse reason, football related creditors get first divi.
See Portsmouth v HMRC carry on.
I think you will still find the taxman has first claim on any monies.
HMRC didn't find so, they didn't even have enough % of debt to carry a vote on the matter.
He still has first claim on nothing if nothing is left.
HMRC don't have first claim, they lost preferential creditor treatment a few years ago, after footballing creditors there left fighting with everyone else"
exactly they queue up just like any other creditor |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
