I demand more butter! But yes, I can see that is an unlikely thing to be able to negotiate. I will at least question the rationale for making the role FTC. And yes, I'll be focussing on my employability over those 2 years if I get them!

Had my 1st consultation. They agreed the point that I would be entitled to redundancy after 2 yrs if I got the FTC role and it wasn't later renewed. BUT, the current redundancy deal is 4 x statutory, and this is something they would not necessarily have to offer me later. I said that is something I would want to negotiate if I were to be offered the role, as I can't live with the prospect of mere statutory redundancy at the end of it. I also explained my argument that the new role is essentially my current role and that therefore it should automatically be mine if I want it. Nothing I can do now except wait for the 2nd consultation Still, feeling fairly optimistic about the outlook. Thanks again for the advice everyone.

Thanks folks, I think you're right. I'll bring it up and see what they make of it. So if I am still entitled to redundancy later if I take the FTC, my remaining challenge will be whether they actually want me to take it or not. If they don't, then I will be arguing that the role is the same as my current role or close enough that they must give it to me. My understanding is that you can't make someone redundant and then advertise a new role that is clearly the same role.

This is promising, thank you! I will go read and research some more to be as sure as I can. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'mastermind' behind this move is unaware of this, and believes they can avoid paying me redundancy if they don't want me in two years. Otherwise what is the point of making it FTC? Now I'm wondering if I should raise this in consultation, or just keep it in my back pocket knowing that I'm still assured of either a job or redundancy at the end of it. During 2 years I can also be networking and working on my credentials, to be better prepared for a job hunt.

Size: About 100 full time staff. This point about perhaps still being entitled to redundancy at the end of a 2yr FTC is key. If that is the case, much of my fear is erased! But I will need to be sure, as otherwise I would be better off taking redundancy now rather than risk being out of work with nothing in 2 years. The supposed rationale for making the role FTC is because "...it is envisaged that the skills/experience required will evolve in this period." No **** Sherlock, that's always been the case, and I could say that about every role in the organisation! I feel this rationale is extremely weak. Reading between the lines, I believe my (fairly new) line manager is unsure of me - our personality types don't quite gel unfortunately - and wants to leave a door open. I have had a succession of managers over the years as the post above me is a bit like the 'Defence Against the Dark Arts' post.

Hi, thought I'd see if I could find any useful advice here. I'm very anxious so any good pointers much appreciated! I'll keep it as brief as I can: I'm a one-man IT dept for a medium size organisation - permanent position that has risen in seniority over 12 years. My line manager is proposing a reorganisation that will end my current role and replace it with an extremely similar role on a 2-year fixed term contract. Redundancy is an option, and I am unsure as yet if 'they' are keen for me to take it, or take the new role. I want to stay on, and I believe the new role is precisely my current role just with a new job title and an improved job description. My current job description is pretty vague, but the new role describes precisely the work I have been doing for years. The only real difference is that some more junior responsibilities will be removed and given to a new, junior role (which is great). If I take the new role on 2yr FTC, I presume I will not get redundancy at the end of that contract if they choose to let me go. I cannot afford to lose my job security like that! I have a 1st consultation coming up, and I will argue that the new role represents what I do currently. So my questions are... Can they do this? If I can prove that the new role describes precisely what I currently do, can they still make my post redundant and leave me with the choice of changing to FTC? If I took the FTC, might I nevertheless be considered to have been continuously employed for my 12 years+, and would that render the 'fixed term' irrelevant as I would be considered permanent in law? I don't know, but this is a possibility I have gathered might be the case from googling around. If 'they' would rather I left, can they even make me redundant when they are replacing my role with such a materially similar one, albeit FTC? I have absolutely no history of failing to perform or being told of any problems with my work, so there are no grounds for dismissal. As I said I'm going to argue that the new role is my current role, I want it, and I don't want to be FTC. I think I have a good case, but I'd love to be able to reference actual laws that back up this position! Thanks again if anyone has any guidance.

Sheesh! Sounds very unfair of the tenant! They should have spoken to you if they had a problem with the bed, not just dumped it! I can't help but suspect that they ruined the mattress somehow and then came up with this 'oh it was smelly' story in an effort to avoid taking responsibility for it Since the mattress was on the inventory and has now disappeared, without any consultation or agreement from you, I'd say it's a clear cut case for deducting from the deposit. Bearing in mind I'm not a clever lawyer type, just my idea of common sense!

Agreed. We failed in that responsibility and are forced to place a little of it at the landlords' feet, which the law permits us to do. We did actually find a place that we could move into on time, but funnily enough that fell through because the owner suddenly announced they were letting it to their daughter! This despite their having our holding deposit for two weeks and having completed referencing. Didn't have much luck did we? This was largely why we failed to find a place in time. It's like karma. One person screws over another, forcing them to mess around another, who then goes bleating about the injustice etc. There's a lesson in there somewhere

On a wooden pallet supported on the backs of orphaned slave children.

If you really want, then fine. I'm an annoying tenant who is staying 13 days beyond the notice period because it's too inconvenient for me to move out sooner. The law supports my position, but clearly I am morally bankrupt. (I should say, me and my 5 month old baby and 5 year old son. Funnily enough, I do not relish orchestrating the temporary relocation of all our belongings whilst finding a B&B where I can make sure my baby gets fed and changed every few hours, whilst maintaining my full time job and not plunging into debt. Funnily enough, I have some slight resentment toward a landlord who verbally promised us a long let, then changed their mind by way of a brief note before disappearing on holiday.) - But of course such personal problems are irrelevant.

Sigh. We received a letter from the letting agent with an incorrect date, delivered by hand. The letting agent admitted the letter had an incorrect date, but produced a copy of a s21 with the correct date, which they claimed had been delivered at the same time as the letter (it was not). Apologies for my confusing wording earlier. All that is irrelevant to me now, as I am content to accept that we did receive notice (a handwritten note dropped through the door by the landlords before they went on holiday). The earlier ploy regarding disputed notice was just that. A ploy. I thought we might get some mileage out of a technicality, since the official letter we received from the letting agent was incorrect. I appreciate that you consider the landlord's moral responsibility to end at having given the legally required 2 month's notice. Presumably no human factors enter into your equations, and you could happily send a man to the gallows as long as you could point to a section and paragraph that clearly stated that hopping on Tuesdays was punishable by death. I won't argue, since abiding by the letter of the law is exactly what I mean to do in this case. I would merely ask you to refrain from deciding who has the moral high ground. If I thought I was on trial I'd have several thousand more words to say on the subject, but I really doubt anyone wants to hear it! Very briefly, their most significant failures thus far: Not being available for discussion until the last minute. Verbal threat to physically evict us on the date of the notice expiration (clearly illegal). Threat to bill us for storage etc (apparently not something they can legally enforce). I have now paid in advance the rent for the additional 13 days.

On reflection, I shouldn't have made that little comment earlier about 'villains'. That was breaking my own rule about keeping to the points that matter and not getting personal, so I withdraw the comment. They are not villains. They lack proper civil (or professional) conduct and have a casual disregard for the law. That better?

Sounds good. I looked up 'mesne profits' too, and made sure I knew how to pronounce it ('meen' apparently). Many thanks Aequitas! I'm now feeling fairly confident that the worst we could get hit with is court costs if they bother seeking a court order. Any dissenting opinions? Thanks again

Undoubtedly. Out of 4 experiences with rented accomodation I've had 2 cases of excellent, helpful landlords, and 2 cases where I was 'less satisfied'