A breach of contract and dismissal can be construed as "wrongful dismissal" not unfair dismissal which does need a qualifying employment period. The two are quite different. ET will hear claims of "wrongful dismissal" regardless of qualifying period. That is how I read the info available on the web. I really need to find out whether the probabtion issue of not exending it before the initial period expired is enough of a breach of contract to take to an ET for loss of earnings.

No, it still would have only been 1 week's notice. My gripe is the fact that they had breached the terms of the contract by not extending it within the initial time period. Also, they didn't follow their probabtion policy at all.

An appeal has not been upheld today following my dismissal for not meeting my performance targets during a 9 month probabtion period. However, part of my appeal was for a breach of contract as the company failed to increase my probabtion period before the initial 6 months had expired. A further 3 months was added to my probation period a week after the initial period expired. Added to this, the company did not follow their policy guidelines at all and did not document anything until they eventually held my 6 month review, which by this time, I was a permanent employee having "passed" my probabtion period. To cut a long story the appeal decision letter contains copious amount of lies regarding the arranging of a review meeting prior the initial one expiring which is completely fictitious to put it mildly. Their policy states I should have been notified 5 days prior to a review meeting taking place...This being just one of many failings with regards to following (or not) their policy!! My question is does this give me enough grounds to take this to an ET on grounds of wrongful dismissal because of the breach of contract? Thanking you in advance. P.S. I had a day off sick after the probation period passed and payroll even paid me!! Obviously, as it showed that I had passed my probation period!

Ahhh, slip of the tongue Ibruk! The redeployment process was fair and reasonable adjustments were made but due to my disability, they couldn't rectify the problems for me carry out my role. So, the pay aspect has no bearing then? I'm sure I read somewhere that if your redeployed under the EA 2010 to a post with higher pay, redeployees are entitled. The waters are muddied somewhat because we have two grades carrying out the same role each on different T&C's. I am on the same T&C's as existing members of staff that are on the higher salary. I am just interested to know in equality terms, if I have been redeployed under the EA 2010 should I be entitled to the same salary as my colleagues on the same T&C's? Thank you for your time.

I've recently been redeployed under the DDA in the Fire Service with my same uniformed T&C's as before. I have been redeployed to a post that pays a higher salary, but have been told that I will not be entitled. In the Fire Service you have uniformed posts and non-uniformed posts, both having different T&C's. I have transferred into a department that have uniformed AND non-uniformed posts and because HR state that they are now regrading the posts to become non-uniform jobs for future vacancies, I cannot be transferred to the higher salary that existing members of the team are entitled to as they were in the team before the re-grading. Is this a discriminatory or a like it or lump it situation? Thanks in advance.

Went to court yesterday for trial regarding the charge of "Failure to Notify". Rebuffed all efforts to settle out of court before the trial and was up before the magistrates yesterday. Explained to the bench that I had completed my obligations and quoted the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7. The prosecutor did emphasise their case on the word "deliver" and the crucial part is where it says "any other expression used". As the word "deliver" doesn't appear, please ensure you convey to the clerk and the bencg that it is covered as it is another expression that the DVLA have used. The other sticking point for the DVLA is that the V5 form contradicts itself. In one area of the form it is asked that you return form V5c and another part it asks for it to be delivered. That magistrates didn't like that. As a result, a not guilty verdict was promptly given.. P.S. What costs can I realisticly claim?

Thanks, I'm under the impression that WTC is covered by the Limitation Act 1980 as it is a debt not a tax. I got this info from the HMRC website. As far as I'm aware we are still being paid WTC and have been since 2004 and did submit a claim back in the summer.As for ignoring other requests for payment or recent correspondence, that is the other odd thing as we have had NOTHING, just the "Distraint Notice" since well, 2004 regarding the debt

Hi Acutetomato - In faireness we can't remember as it was so long ago. It seemed all very hap-dash and was led to believe that reductions would be made in future claims and that was it so to speak. It looks like no reductions have been made at all! The strange thing is why, now?! Why are HMRC being proactive after all this time? Are they worried that the debt could be statute barred, if not already and they just want us to get in contact? The web seems to indicate Distraints are not usually used for enforcement of WTC debts. We still claim WTC as we have 3 children and both work.Thanks

We had an overpayment of WTC back in 2004 in which we thought was being taken into account in subsequent year's claims and was being paid back in this way by way of reduction in award. It seems this wasn't the case. We have now received a "Distraint Notice" saying the the full amount is required for payment or they will send the baliffs round to assess our goods. WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING FROM THEM SINCE 2006! The confusion hereby lies with the distraint notice as it states that baliffs are looking to seize goods from a business point of view (i.e looking to remove goods from premises like vans/office furniture etc...)It looks like it is aimed at Income Tax debts from a business doesn't it?I can't believe they can just land this on us without any constructive attempts to recover the money by way of repayment plans, etc..We don't know what to do and how realistically we will pay it back...the amount is £12k